MACCUBBIN v. MATTHEWS. 251

prayed, that the plaintiff might obtain a decree for the sale of the
land for the payment of the purchase money, and have such other
relief as might be consistent with equity.

The defendant Elizabeth, put in her answer, and therewith filed,
as an exhibit, the original bond of conveyance; the other defen-
dants also filed their answers; to all which the plaintiff put in a
general replication. Whereupon a commission was issued to the
commissioners in Baltimore to take testimony.

After which the plaintiff, by his petition prayed, that, for the better
proof of his bill, and that he might be the better able to sub-
stantiate his claim therein set forth, the register might be ordered
to deliver to him the said original bond of conveyance.

23d November, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—According to the
rule and the general practice of the court, each party is entitled, as
of course, without any special order for that purpose, to withdraw
from the files any writing or document which he himself has placed
there, or of which he may have made an exhibit and filed with his
bill or answer, in order to have it proved under a commission to
take testimony. Upon the ground, that each party may be safely
entrusted in withdrawing and taking care of any documentary evi-
dence which he had previously brought in as necessary to the sup-
port of his claim or defence; and which had not been ordered
into court for safe custody; (a) or where it did not appear, from
the peculiar nature of the case, that the court should have the
power of so dealing with the instrument as to be reasonably sure
of having it produced upon all occasions where its production
might be necessary, (b) But the Chancellor cannot order a record,
such as a bill, answer or deposition, out of the possession of the
proper officer of the court, except in some very peculiar cases, (c)

Here, however, it appears, that the document called for by this
plaintiff, has been exhibited by the defendants, as the instrument
of writing given by him to the vendee, under whom they claim,
and as the principal or only muniment of their title. The plaintiff,
therefore, can have no occasion to have it authenticated; for hav-
ing been thus admitted by the defendants it may be read against
them by the plaintiff without proof; (d) nor is this a case in which

(a) Webb v. Lord Lymington, 1 Eden, 8.—(6) Frankland v. Hamden, 1 Vern,
66; Beckford v. Wildman, 16 Ves. 438.—(c) Anonymous, 1 Ves. jun. 152; Fau-
quier v. Tynte, 7 Ves. 292,—-(d) Cox v. Allingham, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 160.