to discover the time of the making, commencement and determination of their Leases, and what rents are reserved, and the times at which payable, to the end that the same may be liable to an Extent (u).

Lord Rosslyn put the following Case on this subject Suppose a Box of Jewels was pledged by a Person, not the Owner, but a mere Bailee; the Pawnee supposing the Person in possession actually the true Owner, and there being no reason to think otherwise, there would be no difficulty in a Court of Eqity in obliging him to explain, and set out that Property of which he admits the title to lie in another, only claiming the value for which it was pledged, a description that will make it the subject of an Action at Law (x).

Any Person in possession as Tenant, or otherwise, may file a Bill for a Discovery of the Title of one bringing an Ejectment against him, even though he is a wrong-doer against every body (y).

Such a Bill lies for the discovery of Goods put on board a Ship, though insured at a sum certain, Interest or no Interest; for the value of the Goods saved ought to be deducted out of the sum to be paid for Insurance (~).

It has been holden, that a Person may be obliged to discover a Case which he had stated to his own Counsel for his opinion, and the facts stated in the Case (a).

v. Lewis, 1 Vern. 399. Mountford v. Taylor, 6 Ves. 72; and see Hardr. 22.

(u) Toth. 281.

(x) Strode v. Blackburne, 3 Ves. 226; see also 1 Vern. 307. East India Company v. Evans, and expressly to the

same effect, Ibid. 407. Marsden v. Panshall.

(y) 1 Ves. 248. Metcalf v. Harvey.

(2) 2 Vern. 716.

(a) Stanhope v. Roberts, 2 Atk. 214.

So a Bill lies for the discovery of Assets, to enable the Plaintiff to bring an Action at Law against an Executor or Administrator; but in this case the Bill must charge, that Assets or Goods of the Testator came to his hands (b).

So for a discovery of Wine imported, for which Prisage is due (c); or against an Auditor for a Discovery whether the particular by him made is true, though he is fineable for the deceit to the King, if false (d).

If a Defendant has in conscience a right equal to that claimed by a Person filing a Bill against him, though not clothed with a perfect legal Title, a Court of Equity will not compel him to make any Discovery which may hazard his Title; and if the matter appears clearly on the face of the Bill, a Demurrer will hold,(e).

Such a Bill, therefore, does not lie to compel a Purchaser for a valuable Consideration without notice of the Plaintiff's Title, to make a Discovery which may affect his own Title (ƒ); and this is "an infallible Rule" (g); for such Purchaser is not bound in conscience to assist the right Owner in the legal recovery of the subjects purchased under such circumstances (h). And the Assignee of a Purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice is entitled to the same protection (i).

(b) 1 Ch. Ca. 226.
(c) Hard. 138.
(d) Ibid.

(e) Redesd. Tr. Pl. 162.
(f) 2 Chan. Cas. 73.

(g) Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. jum. 454; see also the cases on this subject collected, 8 Vin.

Upon the same principle a

Abr. 546, and what Serjeant Maynard says, 1 Ventr. 198. Snelling v. Squib, 2 Cha. Cas. 47. Perrat v. Ballard, 2 Cha. Cas. 72. Abery v. Williams, 1 Vern. 27.

(h) Hoare v. Parker, 1 Cox, 227.

(i) Sweet against Southcote,

jointress may, in many cases, demur to a Bill filed against her for a discovery of her Jointure Deed, if the Plaintiff is not capable of confirming, or by his Bill does not offer to confirm, the Jointure, and the facts appear sufficiently on the face of the Bill, though, ordinarily, advantage is taken of this defence by way of Plea (k). On this ground, a Mortgagee may protect himself from a Discovery of his Title Deeds, except the Purchase Deed (1), although the Plaintiff brings his Bill to redeem ever so strongly (m); but to this Rule there is an exception in Cases where a Dowress claims a discovery in respect of her Dower (n). Such a Bill will not lie to discover the Tenant to a Præcipe on a voluntary Conveyance (0). Nor will it lie to discover who is Tenant of the Freehold, for the purpose of bringing a Formedon, for there are ways to know it without (p). But such a Bill lies for the discovery of a Tenant to an Estate, whereby to ground an Action of Dower (q), or proceedings for a Partition (r). It does not lie in aid of the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court, because that Court is capable of enforcing a Discovery (s).

Nor does it lie to discover whether a particular person exists, or where he is, to enable the Plaintiff to make. him a party to a Bill (t).

In several Cases it has been held, that after a Verdict such a Bill does not lie in support of a fresh Action. As where the Plaintiff, for want of being able to prove a Letter wrote to him by the Defendant, filed a Bill of Discovery to clear up the matter, the Defendant pleaded the Verdict, and that the effect of the Letter was given in Evidence at the Trial, and also demurred for want of Equity, and the Plea and Demurrer were allowed (u). So in another Case, where Money was paid in part, for Goods, but the Receipts were lost, and the whole was recovered at Law, and a Bill of Discovery was then filed, the Lord Keeper North said, "you come too late for a Discovery after a Verdict" (x).

But it seems that after a Trial a Bill might be filed to compel the production of documents which parties refused to produce at the Trial (y); but a Bill, merely stating a Verdict has passed against the Plaintiff, and praying a Discovery, without imputing a violation of the duties arising from the relation between the Parties, could not be sustained (z).

In general, it seems that the ground for a Bill to obtain a new Trial after Judgment, in an Action at Law, must be such as would entitle the Party to file a Bill of Review of a Decree in a Court of Equity, upon

(t) Chancey v. Tahourdin, 2 Atk. p. 393; but see 1 Vern. 93, cited Redesd. Tr. Pl. 227.

(u) Ch. Cases, 65 Vin. Abr. 8 vol. 542.

(x) Barbone v. Brent, 1 Vern. p. 176.

(y) Field v. Beaumont, Swanst. 209.

(z) Ibid. and see Whitmore v. Thornton, 3 Price, 231.

discovery of new matter (a). Bills, however, of this description are discountenanced (b).

A Barrister is not bound to discover as to Writings he has seen, nor any thing he knows in a Cause as Counsellor (c); but if any thing comes to his knowledge before he was a Counsellor, or upon any other account, he is obliged to answer (d).

In one case it was doubted if a thing were revealed under the condition of secrecy to one not a Barrister, whether or no he would be obliged to answer (e); but it has been holden that an Arbitrator is not bound to make a disclosure (ƒ).

So an Attorney cannot be 'obliged to discover matters relative to the Estate and Affairs of his Client (g), but he is compellable to answer whether there are Deeds, and also where the same are, and to whom they are delivered, and when he last saw the same, and in whose custody; but not to produce or discover the dates or contents of them (h). So he may be examined as to his Client's execution of a Deed in his presence (i). It is said a Trustee may and ought to produce writings (k).

Where several are Partners in an unlawful or clandestine Trade, and one of them brings a Bill of Discovery against the others, they cannot plead that their Answer may subject them to the penalty of an Act of Parliament; for by their going on in such Trade

(a) Redesd. Tr. Pl. 106, 3rd edit. who cites 1 Ch. Cas. 43, 2. (b) Ibid. 105, 6.

(c) Bulstrod v. Letchmere, 2 Freeman 5. 1 Cha. Cas. 27. (d) Ibid.

(e) Ibid. 5.

f) Cha. Cas. 277. S. C.