Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/592

 coit V, NORTH CABOLINA GOLD AMALGAMATING 00. 677 �Coit v. Nobth Carolina Gold Amalgamating Co.* {Ovreuxl Court, E. D, PenmyUwnia. July, 1881.) �i. Aitrmr— Pbacticie — Inspection of Booes and Documents. �The proper practice in equity, where, during the progresa of the cause, either party desires information and use of the contents of books and' documents in the possession of the other, is for the party desiring such information to flie an affldavit, deslgnating the books and documents, and averring the materiality of their contents, whereupon the court will allow the other party to file a coun- ter affldavit, if he desires. �In Equity. �Motion for rule on defendant to show cause why he should not pro- duce certain books and papers alleged to be in his possession. Com- plainant filed no affidavit in support of his motion. �E. F. Hoffnan and G. Hart, for motion. �R. G. McMurtrie, contra. �Butler, D. J., (orally.) The practice in equity formerly was to obtain information and use of the contents of books and documenta in a party's possession, by bill of discovery, requiring the respondent to set out the contents at large in the answer; as this was found to be laborious, expensive, and tending to encumber the records unneces- sarily, it was so changed as to require simply an acknowledgment of the existence and possession of the document, and upon such acknowledg- ment to obtain their production by motion. Where such information and use were needed in trials at law, the practice was the same, until the more convenient one, provided by statute, was adopted, — wherein an affidavit designating the books or documents, and averring the materiality of their contents, is substituted for the bill, and the absence of a counter affidavit is treated as acquiescence in what is stated. AU the purposes of a formai bill are thua eiieoted without any of the cost, labor, and delay of the former practice. There is no good reason why this more convenient and expeditions method should not be applied in equity to cases such as that now before the court. If the plaintiflf had foreseen the need of the books and papers re- quired, had designated them in his bill, and obtained an acknowledg- ment of their existence and possession, in the answer, he would have required nothing more to support his motion for their production. As, however, he did not do so, and the existence of the books and papers, and the defendant's possession of them, must be established, �*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. v.O.no.lO— 37 ��� �