WILLIAMS AND BRADFORD VS. WILLIAMS. 199

which he has, in my judgment, no right, nothing can be fairer,
or more equitable, than that the loss shall fall upon him alone.

I do not think, that the share of the -trust estate of the said
Charles A. Wafers, in the hands of the trustee, can be made
responsible for the prosecution of the appeal, which, it appears
has been taken by him, the said Charles A., from the decree
passed upon his bill, against Charles Howard and others—but
until that appeal shall be decided, I see no objection to per-
mitting the said Charles A., to retain the possession of the said
property, he being chargeable with the rents and profits there-
of, to be retained from his share of the income of the residue of
the trust estate. An order will be passed in conformity with
these views, with liberty to the petitioner, to apply for further
directions as to proceedings, to secure possession of the trust
estate, in the possession of the said Charles A. Waters, should
circumstances render it necessary.

[No appeal was taken from this order. J

WILLIAMS AND BRADFORD

vs. MARCH TERM, 1848.
GEORGE H. WILLIAMS ET AL.

[CHANCERY PRACTICE—PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERS.]

SINCE the assembly of 1798, ch. 84, there can be no doubt of the power of this
court, In a proper case, to compel either of the parties to a suit to produce
books and papers in the possession of the adverse party, which may relate to
matters in issue between them.

But, this is a power to be exercised with caution, and the party calling for its
exercise should, with a reasonable degree of certainty, designate the books
and papers required, and the facts expected to be proved by them.

[On the 19th December, 1843, George Williams, of Harford
county, applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Mary-
land, and at May term, 1844, of Harford County Court, ob-