WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.—2 BLAND, 183

dealings with all persons; consequently it can have no pretension
to any greater right, arising from its mere character as a body
politic, than any individual whatever to withhold any legal evi-
dence, that may be in its possession. It is the duty of an executor
or trustee to keep distinct accounts of the property winch he him-
self is bound to administer. But if he blends them in accounts
with others, and puts the accounts of his testator or the vestui que
trust into his banking or any other books, with the knowledge and
approbation of those who may have a separate interest in such
books, the cestui que text will have a right to see every part of
such original books, which contain anything in relation to the trans-
action in which he has an interest. Earl of Salisbury v. Cecil, 1 Cox,
277: Brace v. Ormond, I Merix. 400; Freeman v. Fairlie, 3 Merix,
33: Bolton. v. Corporation of Liverpool, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 513.

The Act of Assembly upon this subject relates to the documen-
tary evidence in possession of a party to a suit; 1798, ch. 84; and
as regards this Court, has been truly considered as merely an
affirmance of its powers. Hall v. Wirt. 1806, per KILTY, Chancellor,
MS. But where certain specified books and papers are in the
hands of third persons, and the evidence they contain, materially
bearing on the matter in issue, is distinctly designated, as in this
instance, it is clear that a Court of equity, as well as a Court of
common law, may resort to competent means to compel the pro-
duction of such specified written testimony, as well .as verbal
proof; since the power to do so is essential to its constitution as a
Court, without which it could not possibly proceed with due effect.
Amey v. Long, 9 East, 484; Earl of Salisbury v. Cecil, 1 Cox, 277;
The Princess of Wales v. The Earl of Liverpool, 1 Swan. 114; Wal-
burn v. Ingithy, 6 Cond. Chan Rep. 508; Bolton v. Corporation of
Liverpool, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 513; 3 Blae. Com. 382; 1 Harr.
Prac. Chan. 450, 474; Ringgold v. Jones, 1 Bland, 90, note. I shall,
Therefore, overrule the objection of this witness; and order him to
testify as required by the interrogatories.

In this case, the examination has not been attempted to be
taken * under a regular commission. But the mode of pro-
ceeding authorized by the order of the 21st of February, 196
1829, tinder which it was proposed to act, amounts substantially to
a commission. That order authorized an examination before the
commissioners appointed for Baltimore County; or any justice of
the peace. The commissioners having been regularly appointed
according to the Act of Assembly; 1836, eh. 222; 1829, eh. 159;
Park His. Co. Chan. 361; must, therefore, for this purpose, be con-
sidered as much the ministerial officers of the Court, as if they had
been nominated as commissioners in a commission specially
directed to them in the ancient form.

In regard to the authority given by the-order-of the 21st of Feb-
ruary, 1829, to take the depositions of witnesses before a justice