DUVALL v. THE FARMERS BANK.—2 BLAND. 649
* DUVALL v. THE FARMERS BANK. 686

PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERS.

A petition for the production of books and papers to be used on a trial at
law, must give a sufficient description of such documentary evidence, (a)

THIS petition was filed on the 11th of October, 1830, by Graf-
ton B. Duvall against the President, Directors and Company of
the Farmers Bank of Maryland. The petition states, on oath,
that the petitioner had been sued by the defendant in Anne Arun-
del County Court, on two several promissory notes, endorsed by
him and a certain Richard Duvall, and drawn by the late Lewis
Duvall, that those suits stand for trial at the next term of that
Court; that the books, writings and papers of the said bank now
in its possession or power, contain material and necessary evi-
dence; and that he cannot safely proceed to the trial of those
cases without the benefit of the said testimony. The petitioner
upon any bill for foreclosure or sale aforesaid, filed by the executor or ad-
ministrator of the mortgagee, shall have the same effect as if the said heirs
were parties as aforesaid. 1833, ch. 383.

How far these Acts of Assembly may have made any material change in
the nature of the estate of the heirs of the mortgagee; and their right to
have a foreclosure in opposition to the claims of the widow and next of kin
upon the fund considered as personalty gathered into the hands of the execu-
tor or administrator; or in what manner they operate upon the interests of
his heirs or devisees in general; or upon any such peculiar interest as has
arisen in this case; or upon the title of a purchaser under a decree for a sale,
remains to be determined. For it may be made a question, how far the
General Assembly can, constitutionally, change the nature of an estate, or
dispense with the presence of any one as a party to a suit so as, in effect, to
deprive him of his property; or to divest him, arbitrarily, and without com-
pensation, of any pecuniary advantage to which, according to the con-
fessedly legal terms of his contract, he would be entitled. According to the
law, as well settled before and at the time when these Acts were passed, the
mortgagor could not recover in ejectment unless he proved, that the mort-
gage had been satisfied previous to the bringing of his action; or there was a
sufficient foundation to presume such a .reconveyance as extinguished the
mortgage. Powell Mortg. 397; Beat v. Harwood, 2 H. & J. 173. But satis-
faction must be shewn by deed or the presumption of a deed; otherwise a
legal title might, contrary to the spirit of the law, rest on mere parol proof
not recorded, nor sanctioned by circumstances and lapse of time. The pro-
ceedings in equity are properly conclusive against the executor or adminis-
trator; but upon what principle can they be made to operate against the
holder of the legal estate who is no party to them?—Moore v. Plymouth, 5
Com. Law Rep. 232.

(a) Cited in Williams v. Williams, 1 Md. Ch. 201; Williams v. Savage Co. 3
Md. Ch. 430. See rev. Code, Art. 65, sees. 56, 57; Eschbach v. Lightner, 31
Md. 528.