CECIL VS. DOR8EY. 327

It seems to me,to be .quite apparent, that the revising power
of this court, cannot be wisely exercised, and the return rati-
fied or rejected as justice shall dictate, unless the value of the
whole estate, and the value of the several parts, as ascertained
by the commissioners, is reported. The great object to be at-
tained, is a partition among the parties interested, fairly and
equally in value, according to their several just proportions,
and I cannot understand how the court can see that this is
done, if the commissioners, may, or may not, show by their re-
turn, the value they have put upon the entire estate, and of
each part thereof. The commission in this case, did'not direct
the commissioners to take evidence, and in that respect, as is
usual< conforming to the interlocutory decree, but my opinion
is, that the clause added to the form of commissions by the late
Chancellor, and to be found in the Maryland Chancery Prac-
tice, 323, should be always added. With regard to the power
which it gives, to take the depositions of witnesses, it will be
found to agree with the English precedents. Allnutt on Parti-
tion, 212; Manners vs. Charksworth, 8 Eng. Cond. Ch. Rep.,
377.

I cannot bring myself to think, that the legislature intended
to refer so important a matter, as the value of the estate, exclu-
sively to the judgment of the commissioners. They are to as-
certain its value, and ifincumbered, then its value subject to
the incumbrance, and to do this, it is indispensable they should
have authority to examine witnesses, and the depositions of
these witnesses, as a part of their proceedings, are to be return-
ed to the court, that an enlightened judgment may be formed
upon the question of ratification or rejection.

The court, it is true, reposes great confidence in the judgmest
of the commissioners, who, according to Lord Brougham, are
viewed in the capacity of witnesses, as well as arbitrators, but,
to enable them to discharge their important and delicate func-
tions, satisfactorily and safely, they should be clothed with the
supplementary power of calling for the testimony of others, and
then, that the court may see, that the conclusion to which they
come upon their own personal observation, and upon the testi-