84 STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

debt, or there was any discrepancy between his schedule or admis-
sion and the creditor's claim, then the creditor was put to full
proof. 1 Ev. Poth. Obi 409. But the Statute of Limitations was
never considered as an objection to the payment of a claim, either
in the case of a deceased person's estate, or in the case of in-
solvency, unless it was specially relied upon. The case now under
consideration is substantially and in truth, a case of insolvency;
not, indeed, referred to the Chancellor by any special Act of As-
sembly, but one which has been brought here by these proceed-
ings, and in cine course of law; and, therefore, the assets now here
will be distributed upon such principles and proof as have been
applied and required in similar cases, where no objection to the
claim has been made.

But the originally suing creditors have objected, that the claims
of the other creditors, who have come in since the institution of
the suit, are not sufficiently sustained by proof; they have also
objected that those claims are barred by the Statute of Limita-
tions; and their reliance on the .statute was made, and sent with
the reference of the case to the auditor. The reply to these
objections, in argument, is, that they are such as can only be made
by one or other, or both of the defendants; and not by a creditor
or co-plaintiff.

The debtor or his heir, has so manifest an interest in the real
estate which it is proposed, in cases of this sort, to subject to the

ought to be, been exercised with great caution. No instance can be shewn,
where a man has been considered as entitled to the production of private
books, in which he has not an interest. And in all cases where books have
been ordered to be produced, the particular books have been specified; and
the Court has been first satisfied of the necessity of producing them. But,
in no instance has a man, who is not a party to a suit, been compelled to
produce private books. Is it conceivable, that Morgan, exhibiting a, claim
against Sluby. in a summary way, without filing a bill against any person
whatever, is entitled to an order against every person whom he alleges to
have in his possession certain books which may throw light on the subject?
Suppose an order on A, B. to produce books, without any specification, and
the order not complied with, by producing any books whatever. Is A. B.
instantly liable to attachment? It would be ridiculous to suppose it. The
fact is. that no man has a right to the production of another's books; and
every man may do as he pleases with his own books. Each partner, indeed,
is entitled to the benefit of all books kept by the partnership. But then the
person in whose possession they are, must, in some way, be made a party to
a suit, before they can be ordered to be produced.

It appears to the Chancellor, that the utmost he can grant to Benjamin
Morgan, is further time for establishing his claim; and that the Chancellor
cannot, in this case, with propriety, for the reasons herein assigned, direct
any issue, or issues to be tried. It is, on the whole, ordered in the presence,
or with the assent of Morgan's solicitor, that he be allowed until the first
day of July next, to produce his vouchers, and have his account against
Sluby, (if any just account he hath,} stated by the auditor of this Court.