WILLIAMS AND BRADFORD VS. WILLIAMS. 201

THE CHANCELLOR :

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. If the power could
have been questioned before, the act of 1798, ch. 84, would
dissipate it; for the legislature by that act, in express terms,
conferred upon the Chancery Court power and authority to co-
erce the production of books, writings or papers, or certified
copies of such parts thereof, as contain evidence pertinent to the
issue, or relative to the matters in dispute between the parties,
either in cases depending in the courts of law, or in this court.

The power, therefore, is free from doubt, but as observed by
a former Chancellor, it 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. Unless this is
done, the party upon whom the authority of the court is brought
to bear, may find it impossible to comply with its order, which
yet must be enforced by attachment.

The rules which have governed this court,'upon the subject
of compelling the production of books and papers, are stated
with much precision in the cases reported in 1 Bland, 90, in
notes; and in Duvall vs. the Farmers^' Bank, 2 Bland, 686.

The petition in this case does not attempt to designate the
books and papers called for, nor the facts expected to be proved
by them; and, therefore, is clearly deficient in those qualities
which have been deemed essential in applications like the pres-
ent. The defendant, George H. Williams, could not comply
with the order, without producing all the books and papers in
his possession, though the production of many of them might
be wholly unnecessary—the facts recorded in them being wholly
irrelevant to the matters in issue between these parties—-
and the exhibition of them embarrass and prejudice him in the
administration of his trust.

The original order in this case should have been conditional,
and with liberty to the defendant to show cause; and, therefore,