254 CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND.

in controversy to which it related, in that ease and between those
parties. But even considering the settlement of this account by
this executrix, Eleanor Dawsou, before the Orphans' Court, as a
judgment of that tribunal; yet it certainly is not a judgment be-
tween the parties to this ease, upon any point now in controversy
between them. Nor can it be received as an admission in a course
of judicial proceeding, in direct reference to the matters in contro-
versy in this case, which the party can neither contradict nor ex-
plain away at the final hearing. It is, therefore, in no respect an-
alogous to a confirmed auditor's report, and consequently can fur-
nish no foundation for an order to bring money into Court.

But this account, it has been urged, is admissible as proof of
collateral facts, which, together with those admitted by the answer,
furnish a sufficient ground for the order now asked for. I have
said upon a former occasion, that the foundation for such an order
must be found in the direct progress of the case; and be such as
cannot be afterwards contradicted or explained away. Such is
the general rule; and the reason is obvious. If the Court were
to stop, or to turn aside from the direct progress of the case to
collect proofs, in relation to an interlocutory order respecting any
matter, which must, according to the regular course, remain open
for proof until the case was set down tor hearing, it would thus
anticipate the final hearing and decision upon the merits; and in-
volve itself in endless difficulties and contradictions; and be em-
ployed in acting and re-acting for no beneficial purpose, or indeed,
often in doing the greatest injustice to the parties.

The only cases in which the Court has allowed itself to depart
from this general rule, are those which arise between vendors and
purchasers. The reason why affidavits are admitted, in such
cases, to establish those facts and circumstances which are neces-
sary, in connection with the pleadings, to lay a foundation for an
order to bring money into Court, has been already sufficiently ex-
plained in a late case. McKim v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 155. This
is not such a case; nor is there * any thing in it, which can
270 in any respect whatever, take it out of the general rule,
which forbids the Court from turning aside, from the direct pro-
gress of the case, to attend to the introduction of proofs in rela-
tion to any matter involved in a consideration of the merits of
the whole case, aud which should remain open until the final
hearing.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the order of the 27th of February
last, be discharged; and the petition of the complainants be dis-
missed with costs.

After which commissions were taken out, under which proofs
were collected and returned; and the case was brought on for a
final decision.