|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRICE v. TYSON. 397
containing no such stipulation as the one referred to in said
answer, a fact well known to the said defendants.
11th July, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the fore-
going exceptions stand for hearing on the 22d day of the present
month; Provided, that a copy of this order, together with a copy
of the said exceptions, be served on the said defendants or their
solicitor on or before the 15th instant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies having been served as required by this order, the case
was again brought before the court.
3d August, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The exceptions to the
answer standing ready for hearing, the solicitors of the parties
were fully heard and the proceedings read and considered.
This is properly a bill of discovery, and nothing more; and
therefore the case must finally terminate here with the answer; it
can go no further; there can be no hearing upon the merits as
where relief as well as discovery is asked for. (a) This court
having no criminal jurisdiction itself, meddles with no cases of
that description which may be brought before any other tribunal;
and therefore a plaintiff here can only obtain a disclosure of facts
by a bill of discovery in relation to a civil case; either to enable
him to commence his action aright, or to prosecute it with effect.
If upon the face of the bill, it appears that there can be no re-
medy, the plaintiff here cannot have a discovery, which in suck
case would be useless and altogether impertinent; nor can a bill
of discovery be sustained against any one not interested in the
matter in dispute, who may be examined as a witness; and con-
sequently, the plaintiff must by his bill point out the individual
who he has already sued, or against whom he means to bring his
action; and also so state the nature of his case as to enable the
court to judge of the alleged liability of the person designated as
a defendant, (b)
This plaintiff states that he is seeking the relief he claims by an
action now depending in a court of common law; and although
he has by very brief and general expressions stated the nature of
his case; yet its character and object are sufficiently shewn to
enable this court to judge of the bearing of the liability, and to see
that if his claim has any foundation whatever, in point of fact, the
(a) Hindman v. Taylor, t Bro, C. C. 8; Shaftsbury v. Arrowsmith, 4 Ves, 71.—
(b} Rondeau v. Wyatt, 3 Bro. C, C. 155; The Mayor of London v. Levy, 8 Ves.
404; Cartwright v. Hateley, 1 Ves,, junior, 292.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
