686 DUVALL v. THE FARMERS' BANK.

DUVALL v. THE FARMERS1 BANK.

A petition for the production of books and papers to be used on a trial at law, must
give a sufficient description of such documentary evidence.

THIS petition was filed on the 11th of October, 1830, by Graf-
ton B. Duvall against The President, Directors and Company of
the Farmers' Bank of Maryland. The petition states, on oath,
that the petitioner had been sued by the defendant in Anne Arun-
del County Court, on two several promissory notes, endorsed by
him and a certain Richard Duvall, and drawn by the late Lewis
Duvall, that those suits stand for trial at the next term of that
court; that the books,>'writings and papers of the said bank now
in its possession or power, contain material and necessary evi-
dence; and that he cannot safely proceed to the trial of those
cases without the benefit of the said testimony. The petitioner

tor or administrator in full acknowledged and recorded in manner and time as pre-
scribed for acknowledging and recording conveyances of lands by way of mortgage,
shall have the same effect as a release to the grantor. 1833, ch. 181, s. 1. And
moreover, that it shall not be necessary in any cause of foreclosure or sale of mort-
gaged property, to make the heirs of the mortgagee parties to the same; but that
any decree upon any bill for foreclosure er sale aforesaid, filed by the executor or
administrator of the mortgagee, shall have the same effect as if the said heirs were
parties as aforesaid. 1833, ch. 283.

How far these acts of assembly may have made any material change in the nature
of the estate of the heirs of the mortgagee; and their right to have a foreclosure in
opposition to the claims of the widow and next of kin upon the fund considered
as personalty gathered into the hands of the executor or administrator; or in what
manner they operate upon the interests of his heirs or devisees in general; or upon
any such peculiar interest as has arisen in this case; or upon the title of a pur-
chaser under a decree for a sale, remains to be determined. For it may be made a
question, how far the general assembly can, constitutionally, change the nature of
an estate, or dispense with the presence of any one as a party to a suit so as, in
effect, to deprive him of his property; or to divest him, arbitrarily, and without
compensation, of any pecuniary advantage to which, according to the confessedly
legal terms of his contract, he would be entitled. According to the law, as well
settled before and at the time when these acts were passed, the mortgagor could not
recover in ejectment unless he proved, that the mortgage had been satisfied previous
to the bringing of his action; or there was a sufficient foundation to presume such a
re-conveyance as extinguished the mortgage. Powell Mortg. 397; Beal v. Har-
wood, 2 H. & J. 172. But satisfaction must be shewn by deed or the presumption
of a deed; otherwise a legal title might, contrary to the spirit of the law, rest
on mere parol proof not recorded, nor sanctioned by circumstances and lapse of
time. The proceedings in equity are properly conclusive against the executor or
administrator; but upon what principle can they be made to operate against the
holder of the legal estate who is no party to them? Moore v. Plymouth, 5 Com.
Law Rep. 232.