f

254 THE BANK v. DUGAN.

nately over the whole territory of the state, (i) But here no objec-
tion of this kind appears to have been made by these witnesses;
and, therefore, they must be ordered to attend as prayed.

Ordered, that the said Charles Waters and O'Neal Cromwell,
attend before the said commissioners at their office in the city of
Baltimore, on Monday, the 18th day of the present month, and
from time to time thereafter, as the said commissioners may appoint,
then and there to answer, on oath or affirmation, all such lawful
questions as may be propounded to either of them, touching the said
matter in controversy; and, on failing to do so, that they or he
who shall so fail, be forthwith thereafter, brought before this court
to answer the said contempt. Provided that the said commis-
sioners give notice, as usual, to the opposite party, of the time and
place of taking the said testimony. And it is further Ordered,
that the register issue an attachment as prayed to enforce obe-
dience to this order.

After which, these witnesses attended, their depositions were
taken, and the commission was returned, together with their and
other testimony. Upon which the case was heard; and on the
30th of April, 1833, it was Decreed, that the administrator should
pay to the plaintiff the balance of the purchase money, other than
that due upon the bond, &e.

THE BANK v. DUGAN.

A creditor's suit against an executor atone.—A creditor permitted to come in, on
petitiont before the defendant had answered.—Where a plaintiff has an interest in
books, which the defendant admits to be in his possession, he may be ordered to
produce them; but they must be called for by petition, not by way of exception
to the defendant's answer.—The answer overrules the plea.

THIS bill was filed on the 22d of May, 1829, by The President
and Directors of the Bank of Maryland against Cumberland
Dugan, surviving executor of James Clarke, deceased. The bill
charged, that the executors of the deceased by their improper,
negligent, and illegal conduct had so managed the assets of the
deceased, that a large amount of them had heen wasted; in con-
sequence of which his creditors had not been paid. Whereupon

(i) Anonymous, 4 Mad. 463; Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, 465.