|
|
|
|
|
|
|
434 DEALE v. Estep
and Company of the Farmers Bank of Maryland, The object of
the bill was to be relieved against a judgment obtained by these
defendants, and to stay proceedings at law on that judgment. An
injunction was granted; and on a motion to dissolve, on the
coming in of the answer, it was continued until the final hearing.
A commission was then issued; and the depositions of many
witnesses were taken and returned. After which the case having
'been brought on for a final hearing, by a decree passed on the
19th of July, 1831, the injunction was dissolved, and the bill
dismissed with costs, to be taxed by the register,
On the 26th of July, 1831, the defendants by their petition
stated, that the subpaenas issued by the commissioners to sundry
witnesses to appear before them and testify in the case, had been
served by the sheriff of Anne Arundel county, who claimed such
fees for serving the process, so issued by the commissioners, as
were allowed to him by law, in general terms, for serving all sub-
paenas. And, as a voucher of this charge by the sheriff, the peti-
tioners exhibited an account of several items amounting to eight
dollars and nineteen cents; which, however, was not signed by the
sheriff; nor did it specify the case, or under what authority, or at
"Whose instance the witnesses had been summoned. This charge
the register had refused to include in the bill of costs. Where-
upon the petitioners prayed, that the register might be ordered to
include this charge, as sheriff's fees, in the bill of costs which he
had been directed by the decree to tax.
5th August, 1831.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This is indeed a case
of very small amount in value; but it involves principles which
are of the greatest importance as regards the practice and course
of proceeding in this court. The right of this tribunal to resort to
some effectual means of collecting legal testimony of every descrip-
tion, it is manifest, must be found among the powers necessarily
belonging to it as a court; for, without such a power, it would be
impossible to proceed with due effect in the administration of jus-
tice in any controverted case whatever. The only inquiry there-
tore is, as to the mode of proceeding which should be adopted to
that great object, (a)
In England, the leading process, in courts of equity, is the
subpaena ad respondendum, which is not, like the first process in a
suit at common law, directed to the sheriff) commanding him to
(a) Amey v. Long, 9 East. 484; Lupton v. Hescott, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 138,
Maccubbin v. Matthews, 2 Bland, 250.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
