236 MACCUBBIN v. MATTHEWS.—2 BLAND.

The defendant Elizabeth, put in her answer, therewith filed,
as an exhibit, the original bond of conveyance; the other defend-
ants also filed their answers; to all which the plaintiff put in a
general replication. Whereupon a commission was issued to the
commissioners in Baltimore to take testimony.

After which the plaintiff, by his petition prayed, that, for the
better proof of his bill, and that he might be the better able to
substantiate his claim therein set forth, the register might be
ordered to deliver to him the said original bond of conveyance.

BLAND, C., 23d November, 1829.—According to the rule and
the general practice of the Court, each party is entitled, as of
course, without any special order for that purpose, to withdraw
from the files any writing or document which he himself has placed
there, or of which he may have made an exhibit and filed with his
bill or answer, in order to have it proved under a commission to
take testimony. Upon the ground, that each party may be safely
entrusted in withdrawing and taking care of any documentary
evidence which he had previously brought in as necessary to the
support of his claim or defence; and which had not been ordered
into Court for safe custody; Webb v. Lord Lymington, 1 Eden, 8;
or where it did not appear, from the peculiar nature of the case,
that the Court should have the power of so dealing with the in
strument as to be reasonably sure of having it produced upon all
occasions where its production might be necessary. Franklin v.
Hamden, 1 Vern 66; Beckford v. Wildman, 16 Ves. 438. But the
Chancellor cannot order a record, such as a bill, answer or deposi-
tion, out of the possession of the proper officer of the Court, ex
cept in some very peculiar cases. Anonymous, 1 Vew. Jun. 152:
Fauquier v. Tynte, 7 Ves. 292.

Here, however, it appears, that the document called for by this
plaintiff, has been exhibited by the defendants, as the instrument
of writing given by him to the vendee, under whom they claim,
and as the principal or only muniment of their title. The plain
tiff, therefore, can have no occasion to have it authenticated; for
having been thus admitted by the defendants it may be read
against them by the plaintiff without proof; Cox v. Allingham, 4
Cond. Chan. Rep. 160; nor is this a case in which *he can.
252 upon any ground, claim to have it taken from the file, and
committed to his custody, for any purpose whatever. Graves v.
Budget, 1 Atk. 444; Harris v. Bodenham, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 143.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the said petition be dismissed with
costs.

The commissioners of Baltimore to whom the commission to
take evidence had been issued, upon the application of the plain
tiff, issued a summons in the following words: