WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER. 195

not pertinent to the matter in issue. (n) It surely cannot be
pretended, that an individual, because it happens to be convenient
to withhold a statement of his dealings with a party to the suit,
pertinent to the matter in issue, from being used as evidence in that
suit, should, therefore, be permitted to do so at his pleasure. A
bank, as a body politic, is endowed with many attributes of perso-
nality; and acts as an individual in its dealings with all persons;
consequently it can have no pretension to any greater right, arising
from its mere character as a body politic, than any individual
whatever to withhold any legal evidence, that may be in its pos-
session. It is the duty of an executor or trustee to keep distinct
accounts of the property which he himself is bound to administer.
But if he blends them in accounts with others, and puts the ac-
counts of his testator or the cestue qui trust into his banking or any
other books, with the knowledge and approbation of those who
may have a separate interest in such books, the cestue qui trust
will have a right to see every part of such original books which
contain any thing in relation to the transaction in which he has an
interest, (o)

The act of Assembly upon this subject relates to the documen-
tary evidence in possession of a party to a suit; (p) and as regards
this court, has been truly considered as merely an affirmance of its
powers, (q) But where certain specified books and papers are in
the hands of third persons, and the evidence they contain, mate-
rially bearing on the matter in issue, is distinctly designated, as
in this instance, it is clear that a court of equity, as well as a court
of common law, may resort to competent means to compel the
production of such specified written testimony, as well as verbal
proof; since the power to do so is essential to its constitution as a
court, without which it could not possibly proceed with due
effect, (r) I shall, therefore, overrule the objection of this witness;
and order him to testify as required by the interrogatories.

In this case, the examination has not been attempted to be taken

(n) Ashton v. Ashton, 1 Vern. 165.—Earl of Salisbury v. Cecil, 1 Cox. 277;
Brace v. Ormond, 1 Meriv. 409; Freeman v. Fairlie, 3 Meriv. 43; Bolton 9. Corpo-
ration of Liverpool, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 513.—(p) 1798, ch. 84.—(q) Hall v. Wirt,
1806, per Kilty, Chancellor, M. S.—(r) Amey v. Long, 9 East. 434; Earl of Salis-
bury v. Cecil, 1 Cox, 277; The Princess of Wales v. The Earl of Liverpool, i
Swan, 114; Walburn v. Ingilhy, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 508; Bolton v. Corporation
of Liverpool, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep. 513; 3 Blac. Com. 382; 1 Harr. Prac. Chan.
450, 474; Ringgold v. Jones, 1 Bland, 90, note.