must be borne by the plaintiff. Hunter v. Nockolds, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 380; 6 Hare, 459.

(G) DEMURRER.

[See PLEADING, IN EQUITY-Bill.] [Knight v. Marjoribanks, 5 Law J. Dig. 611; 14 Sim. 198.]

The defendant demurred to the bill for want of parties, and the plaintiff submitted to the demurrer, and added these parties by amendment. The defendant again demurred to the bill for want of equity, and for want of parties. On the argument of the second demurrer,-Held, that the Court was at liberty, with reference to costs, to look at the first demurrer.

The defendant demurred to the bill for want of parties, and the plaintiff submitted to the demurrer. The defendant again demurred for want of parties, and the Court, after argument, reserved the question to the hearing of the cause. The demurrer would have been overruled without costs had there not been a former demurrer; but in consequence of the former demurrer, it was overruled with costs to a certain amount. Brydges v. Bacon, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 128.

Where a plaintiff had unsuccessfully applied to have a demurrer taken off the file for irregularity, and had not set down the demurrer for argument within the time allowed by the 46th Order of May 1845, the Court (discharging an order of the Court below) refused to restore the bill. Mathews v. Chichester, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 160; 5 Hare, 207.

Some of the defendants were served with a copy of the bill under the 25th Order of August 1841, but did not enter any appearance. After the hearing, the bill was amended merely by adding parties, and the quasi defendants were served with a copy of the amended bill, to which they then entered an appearance in the usual form, and filed a general demurrer :- -Held, that they were not entitled, in that state of the cause, to file such a demurrer; and it was ordered to be taken off the file. v. Cockerell, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 196; 4 Hare, 565.

Powell

A defendant, who had not demurred to the bill within twelve days from his appearance afterwards put in an answer and a demurrer to the whole bill, and set down the demurrer for argument. The demurrer was overruled for irregularity. Skey v. Garlicke, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 480; 1 De Gex & S. 396.

The Court, on the argument of a demurrer, takes into consideration the nature of the case, for the purpose of considering as well whether there ought to be any direction given as to costs, as whether there ought to be any leave given to amend the bill, and the same is entirely in the discretion of the Court upon the facts appearing before it. Schneider v. Lizardi, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 435; 9 Beav. 461.

The Court will not determine on demurrer a point which cannot conveniently be decided by that form of proceeding. Leigh (Lord) v. Ashburton, (Lord), 11 Beav. 470.

A bill was filed for the specific performance of an agreement, by which the plaintiff was to receive

a per-centage upon a certain number of bottles of mineral water, imported by the defendant from the duchy of Nassau, in consideration of personal services rendered by him to the defendant, for procuring the right of exportation. An agreement was also made that a deed should be executed to carry out the terms of the agreement. The defendant appeared to the bill, and applied for an extension of time to answer. Defendant then died, and upon a bill of revivor and supplement being filed against his personal representative, a general demurrer was put in-Held, that the Court might direct the execution of a deed for carrying out an agreement of this nature, but, at all events, the demurrer could not be sustained, since the original defendant had applied for further time to answer, and his representative was bound by that act, and was precluded from demurring. Granville v. Betts, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 32.

The 37th General Order of August 1841, although it removes the technical objection, that an answer to matters covered by a demurrer overrules the demurrer, yet does not enable a defendant who has answered the original bill to demur to an amended bill upon any cause of demurrer to which the original bill was open. Attorney General v. Cooper, 8 Hare, 166.

(H) REPLICATION.

[See (A) Bills, (k) Dismissal of.]

The replication, the form of which is contained in the 93rd Order of May 1845, is the replication intended by the 111th of those Orders; and, therefore, where a subpoena to rejoin under the old practice had been served previously to the operation of those Orders, it was determined that publication did not pass under the 111th of those Orders, and that an order of the Court was necessary for that purpose.

Unless a good objection be shewn, the Court will, in a case like the present, direct publication to pass.

Where a replication only, according to the old practice, has been filed, a replication in the new form may be filed for the purpose of putting the cause at issue. Wheatley v. Wheatley, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 123.

The plaintiff having filed a replication, neglected to give notice thereof to the defendant, until thirtyfive days afterwards. The replication was ordered to be taken off the file, and the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application for that purpose. Johnson v. Tucker, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 442; 15 Sim. 599.

Where notice of filing replication is not given on the same day on which the replication is filed, as required by the 23rd Order of October 1842, the Court will not declare the replication void; but will correct the consequence of the irregularity, by adding to the time allowed to the defendant for taking the next step in the cause the time lost to him by the delay in the service of the notice. Wright v. Angle, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 29; 6 Hare, 107.

(I) PETITION.

Facts occurring after a petition has been answered

cannot be introduced into it by amendment. Doubtfire v. Elworthy, 15 Sim. 77.

If a petition for an ex parte order suppresses any fact, whether material or not, which if known to the officer would have caused him to apply to the Court before drawing up the order, the order will be discharged for irregularity, Cooper v. Lewis, 2 Ph. 178.

A suit for specific performance of a contract was at the hearing ordered to stand over. The contract being afterwards performed, the plaintiff was allowed on petition to bring before the Court the facts occurring subsequent to the answer. Pricev. the Mayor, &c. of Penzance, 4 Hare, 506.

It is not necessary to name the next friend of the petitioner on the petition of a married woman, under the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 54, for access to infants in the custody of the father. In re Groom, 7 Hare, 38.

The petition of a person not a party to the cause must state his residence. Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 492.

A petition was presented by several solicitors, complaining of certain irregularities in the proceedings in one of the Masters' offices; an objection that the petitioners had no locus standi was overruled, although some only were engaged in any suit in which any reference had been made tothat particular Master. In re Whiting, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 242; 1 Ph. 650.

Prolixity in setting out at length, in a petition or other pleading, clauses of a public statute. In re Manchester and Leeds Rail. Co., ex parte Osbaldiston, 8 Hare, 31.

Where two petitions are presented in the same matter, the one first presented is entitled to be first opened. In re Mallorie, 1 Hall & Tw. 435.

(K) CLAIM.

General Orders of the 22nd of April 1850, as to the cases in which claims may be filed, and giving forms, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. ii.; 1 Mac. & G. xiv.; 2 Hall & Tw. ix.

Practice as to setting down claims for hearing. M'Cullock v. Haggar, 12 Beav. 546.

Leave given to amend a claim. Early v.Whitling, 12 Beav. 549.

Practice where claim filed after bill exhibited for the same purpose, and decree afterwards made in the suit before the claim heard. Dicker v. Hugo, 12 Beav. 550.

Trustees and devisees of real and personal estate claimed to have the will of their testator established against co-heiresses-at-law, and the trusts carried into execution, and the personal estate administered. The Court gave permission to file the claim. Rickford v. Young, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 311; 12 Beav. 537.

Upon motion for leave to file a claim to take certain partnership accounts alleged to have been irregularly kept, and for an injunction,-Held, that the Orders were not intended to apply to a special case of this nature.

Held also, that such claims did not require the signature of counsel. Carmichael v. Ogilby, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 424.

Course adopted in claims for the appointment of new trustees, see 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 572. Special claims in what cases allowed. Ibid.

Claim by a married woman by her next friend. Rolling v. Hargreaves, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc.

570.

The Court will not make any order in the absence of the defendant, unless on the production of proper evidence in support of the claim. Anonymous, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 570.

A defendant to a claim residing out of the jurisdiction may be served with a writ of summons by leave of the Court. M'Coy v. Cross, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 570.

The 22nd Order as to reviving suits is not applicable to suits instituted before the 22nd of May 1850. Carter v. Smith, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 571.

A common claim by first mortgagee against second mortgagee and mortgagor allowed. Pownall v. Durkin, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 571.

A common claim allowed by mortgagee against mortgagor, and judgment creditor of mortgagor. Hanson v. Games, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 571.

Where there was a bequest of stock to an executor on trust, a claim by the cestuis que trust against the executors may be filed without leave. Smith v. Smith, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 571.

(L) MOTIONS.

(a) In general.

Where the creditors and official assignee of a bankrupt filed a bill as co-plaintiffs, and the latter died before the decree, and the former died after it,-Held, that the name of the new official assignee might be substituted as plaintiff, by motion, without the bill being amended, or a supplemental bill being filed; and that he could carry on the suit without a creditors' assignee. Man v. Rickets, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 79; 1 Ph. 617.

A trustee charged with breach of trust admitted by his answer the misapplication of three sums, and set forth an account crediting himself with these sums, and a fourth which was equally inadmissible. On a motion for payment of these three sums into court, the plaintiff was not allowed to enter into the question of the defendant's right to the fourth sum. Nokes v. Seppings, 2 Ph. 19.

Special leave given to the plaintiffs to move for liberty to amend their bill by striking out the name of one of such plaintiffs and making him a defendant:-Held, to authorize a motion by such of the parties as were to remain, excluding the plaintiff whose name was to be struck out: and the Court made the order, without prejudice to a motion then pending for a receiver in the original cause. Hart v. Tulk, 6 Hare, 612.

A motion stood over on the defendant's application; when it again came on the defendant had without order changed his solicitor, and no counsel then appeared for him. The motion was granted on an affidavit of service. Davidson v. Leslie, 9 Beav. 104. It is only in very special cases, and not at the option of the parties, that affidavits are admitted on a motion, after it has been opened to the Court. The East Lancashire Rail. Co. v. Hattersley, 8 Hare, 86.

Some of the cestuis que trust of a mining lease filed a bill against their trustees and the lessors, alleging that an agreement binding in equity had

been entered into between the defendants for a reduction of the royalties covenanted to be paid by the lessees; and that in violation of this agreement the lessors were suing the lessees upon the covenant, and the bill sought for a specific performance and an injunction against the suit at law. Notice of motion for the injunction was given, and affidavits filed verifying the statements in the bill. Before the day fixed by the notice, the lessors put in their answer, but the trustees did not. The plaintiffs filed further affidavits denying certain misrepresentations which the answer stated to have been made:-Held, that the affidavit might be read on the motion. Griffiths v. Williams, 2 De Gex & S. 15.

A plaintiff served a defendant with a notice of motion, under the 76th Order of May 1845. Before the motion was made the defendant put in.his answer:- Held, that the plaintiff had a right to bring on the motion for the purpose of obtaining the costs of it. Spooner v. Payne, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 130; 2 De Gex & S. 439.

Motion by a plaintiff in a creditors' suit, after decree, to restrain proceedings of other creditors in other suits. Practice as to the payment to such creditors so to be restrained of their costs of such proceedings and of the motion. West v. Swinburne, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 81.

At a meeting of a railway company in May 1848 it was resolved that 1,055,000l. should be raised by 105,500 preference shares of 10%. each, on which a fixed dividend of 61. per cent. should be paid. In July 1848, one of the dissentients filed a bill praying a declaration that this resolution was unauthorized by the company's acts, and for an injunction against the issue of such shares, and no other specific relief. Upon motion in August for an injunction accordingly, it appeared by the affidavit of the secretary that the preference shares had been offered to all the shareholders rateably, and had been taken to the amount of 777,7701. on which the first instalment had been paid, and that other shareholders had expressed their desire to accept other shares, and that there were only five dissentients :-Held, that the motion involved substantially the whole matter in dispute in the cause, and must be refused. Fielden v. the Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co., 2 De Gex & S. 531.

(b) Notice of Motion.

An order may be impeached for irregularity, although the notice of motion does not specify the ground, the omission being material (if at all) only as to costs. Brown v. Robertson, 2 Ph. 173.

Motion by one of several defendants that the deposition of a witness who had been examined by the plaintiff should be suppressed:-Held, that notice of the motion ought to have been served on the other defendants. Barnett v. Papineau, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 466.

(M) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

(a) General Points.

Production of documents for a limited period refused. Attorney General v. Bingham, 9 Beav. 159. Production refused of a deed which the plaintiff

by his bill sought to set aside. Dendy v. Cross, 11 Beav. 91.

On motion for production, the defendant asked that the plaintiff might be prevented using the documents for any collateral purpose, alleging that proceedings at law were pending. The Court declined so to restrict the order. Tagg v. the South Devon Rail. Co., 12 Beav. 151.

A person served with a subpoena duces tecum under the 24th Order of May 1845, to produce a document at the hearing of a cause, may, at such hearing, be called upon his subpoena and asked whether he produces the document, and if he declines to do so, why he so declines, or other like questions confined to the mere purpose of production. Griffith v. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 301.

The defendant pleaded to part of a bill and answered as to the remainder. The plaintiff moved for production before the plea had been set down. The Court directed the motion to stand over until the plea had been argued. Buchanan v. Hodgson, 11 Beav. 368.

In a suit to obtain evidence in aid of an ejectment commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, the clerk of records and writs, upon a motion for the production of deeds admitted by the defendant's answer to be in his custody, will, upon an affidavit of service, be ordered to produce them at that or any other trial at law between the parties. Smith v. Stone, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 233.

Deeds brought into court by the executor under the common order for the production of documents made in a creditors' suit, will, after the debts are paid, be ordered to be delivered out to the party by whom they were deposited; and the Court refused to order such deeds to be delivered to the plaintiff in the cause, though he was the tenant for life of the estate comprised in the deeds. Plunkett v. Lewis, 6 Hare, 65.

A suit was instituted to restrain proceedings at law to recover for work and labour in constructing a sewer, on the ground of fraud on the part of the defendant in equity in improperly obtaining possession of an estimate in writing, and by chemical process removing the figures indicating the price. The document in question having been deposited with the clerk of records in pursuance of an order for production, the plaintiff moved for liberty to subject it to chemical tests for the purpose of the trial at law, upon an undertaking by the defendant to produce it to be stamped at the trial at law. The Court refused to make any order. Twentyman v. Barnes, 2 De Gex & S. 225.

Re-delivery of documents deposited in the Master's office. Alderman v. Bannister, 9 Beav. 516.

(b) When Production may be enforced. Defendant admitted that documents were in his solicitors' hands, having come to them as representatives of the solicitors of the defendant's testator; but he said they were not in his possession or power or under his controul. The Court refused to order production. Palmer v. Wright, 10 Beav. 234.

A bankrupt defendant put in his answer, stating that certain books, &c. were in his solicitor's possession, who claimed a lien on them, and that he could not obtain possession thereof. The Court

ordered the defendant to produce them, with liberty to apply, if necessary. Rodick v. Gandell, 10 Beav. 270.

A bill was filed against trustees and a cestui que trust to set aside a conveyance. The trustees admitted the possession of certain letters, &c., but insisted that they were privileged communications between them and their cestui que trust, for whom they, or one of them, acted as solicitor. The cestui que trust, by his answer, denied that the other defendants were his solicitors; but stated, in his answer to the amended bill, that the letters, &c. had come to their possession as his solicitors, or related to matters in which he had consulted them respecting proceedings in the ecclesiastical court, to enable him to instruct his proctors :-Held, that the answer of the cestui que trust might be read by the plaintiff, as against the other defendants, the trustees, upon a motion for the trustees to produce the letters, &c.; and an order was made for their production. Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 343; 2 Ph. 607; reversing s. c. 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 88; 10 Beav. 143. Estates were demised to trustees for a term of ninety-nine years, in trust, to permit the wife of the lessor, or such persons as she should by will appoint, to receive the rents thereof during the term. The fee simple was afterwards purchased, subject to the term, and the purchaser subsequently purchased the term, and took an assignment of it from the wife and the trustees. The wife, as was alleged, by her will bequeathed the estate to the plaintiff; but the will and the title of the plaintiff under the will were not admitted by the defendant; who, however, acknowledged that he had in his possession the original demise, and also the indenture of assignment, an abstract of which latter deed he set forth in his answer:-Held, that under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to the production of any of the deeds. Glover v. Hall, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 249; 2 Ph. 484.

On a motion for production of documents, the plaintiff must shew from the admissions in the answer that the documents relate to the contents of the bill as it stands when the motion is made. Haverfield v. Pyman, 2 Ph. 202.

A mortgagee against whom a bill was filed by another mortgagee for redemption and foreclosure, admitted the possession of vouchers consisting of bills of exchange and promissory notes,-Held, that he was bound to produce them. Hewett, 9 Beav. 293.

Gibson v.

Where the defendant stated in his answer that under a certain deed which was in his possession his father was tenant for life, and never had any greater estate than for life, and that he himself was tenant in tail under the same deed, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a production. Wasney v. Tempest, 9 Beav. 407.

The defendant, by his answer, denied the plaintiff's title to certain money deposited with a bank, but admitted the possession of a document which gave him (the defendant) controul over the money: -Held, on a motion for the production of the document, that the plaintiffs were only entitled to inspect it and take copies, and not to deprive the defendant of his controul over the money by having

the document deposited in the usual way. Mayor of Berwick v. Murray, 1 Mac. & G. 530; 1 Hall & Tw. 452.

The defendant to a bill of discovery, in aid of the plaintiff's defence to an action at law, cannot be compelled to produce a document as to which the bill contains no allegation that it relates to the matter in issue in the action.

This protection was held to be sufficiently claimed by the defendant stating that he was advised, and verily believed, that the document in question did not contain evidence in support of the plaintiff's pleas. Peile v. Stoddart, 1 Mac. & G. 192.

A bill was filed by the heir-at-law of a testator, against a purchaser from his devisees in trust for sale, to set aside the conveyance on the ground that the purchaser had acted as solicitor to the devisees, and the consideration was inadequate. The defendant, by his answer, insisted that the title was materially defective, and, regard being had to that, the consideration was adequate; and he admitted possession of the title-deeds :-Held, that the title deeds must be produced. Shallcross v. Weaver, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 450; 2 Hall & Tw. 231; 12 Beav. 272.

An order for the production of deeds, &c. will not be made against the administrator of a deceased defendant, though the suit has been revived, and though an order has been previously made against the defendant himself, there being nothing to shew that they were in the possession of the administrator. Scott v. Wheeler, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 402; 12 Beav. 366.

Where the entries in the trade books of a defendant may shew the infringement by him of an alleged custom for the benefit of the plaintiff, the Court will order the production of the trade books for the inspection of the plaintiff before the hearing, and before the existence of the custom has been proved, notwithstanding the existence of such custom is denied by the answer of the defendant. Ord v. Fawcett, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 487.

Executors and trustees, by their answer, admitted six books to be in the custody or power of their agent, and the agent, on a motion for production, deposed that he was agent for many other persons, and that his books related to the affairs of such other persons, as well as to those in question in the cause:Held, that the executors had not so mixed up the testator's accounts with others as to preclude them from insisting that the books were not in their power, and a motion for production was refused. Airey v. Hall, 2 De Gex & S. 489.

Defendants by their answer stated, that save as appeared therein and in the documents which were mentioned in the schedule thereto, and which the defendants were willing to produce as part of their answer, they were unable to answer further. In a subsequent part of the answer, the defendants admitted possession of the documents scheduled to the answer, which they were willing to produce, with the exception of such as were confidential communications, for which they claimed privilege: -Held, that by the general reference in the former part of the answer, the whole of the documents were made part of the answer; and that the subsequent reservation of some on the ground of pri

vilege would not protect them from production. Macintosh v. the Great Western Rail. Co., 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 169; 1 Mac. & G. 73; 1 Hall & Tw. 41.

The defendant, in his answer to a bill seeking discovery in aid of the plaintiff's defence to an action at law brought by the defendant against him, stated that the letters, papers and writings scheduled to his answer contained the evidence on which the defendant was advised and intended to rely at the trial of the action, and that the same did not, nor did any of them, " as the defendant was advised and verily believed," contain any evidence whatever in support of the plaintiff's pleas in the action; and that the same were not in any manner material to the plaintiff's case:-Held, that the statement was a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's motion for production and inspection of the scheduled documents. Peile v. Stoddart, 1 Hall & Tw. 207.

One of several defendants, by his answer, admitted the possession of documents; but by an affidavit subsequently filed, stated that, since his answer, he had deposited them with one of his co-defendants. A motion for their production refused in the absence of the co-defendant. Burbidge v. Robinson, 2 Mac. & G. 244.

(c) Privileged Documents.

The draft of an answer prepared for a deceased defendant, but not put in, is a privileged document in the hands of his administratrix. But if the administratrix, by her answer, admit possession of, and set out part of the contents of the document, and crave leave to refer to the same, she loses the privilege as to the part so set out, but retains it as to the remainder. Belsham v. Harrison, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 438.

A bill filed against a canal company alleged that the company had for several years been gradually encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff, whose property adjoined to the canal; and prayed for a commission to ascertain the boundaries:Held, that the company were bound to produce maps of the canal, and also leases of the adjoining lands, which the plaintiff alleged to comprise part of his property; notwithstanding that the company insisted by their answer that they related to their own title and not to the title of the plaintiff. Bute (Marquis) v. the Glamorganshire Canal Company, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 60; 1 Ph. 681.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was in possession of a certain estate, was not the person intended to be the devisee of such estate; the bill prayed that the plaintiff might be declared entitled instead of the defendant, and it prayed an account of the rents and profits of the estate. The defendant pleaded to so much of the discovery as prayed an account, refusing production of all documents relating to the rents and profits, and averred that he was the party designated. The defendant, by his answer, set forth all documents except those relating exclusively to the rents and profits:-Held, that the defendant was no more protected by the plea from production of documents relating to the rents and profits than those relating to identity, and the plea was overruled. DIGEST, 1845-1850.

Rigby v. Rigby, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 199; 15 Sim. 90.

In a cross bill filed against a corporation, which claimed an exclusive right of metage of grain and other articles, it was alleged that the right was of modern origin, and that the fees for metage had varied. The corporation admitted metage books and other documents to be in their possession, which were evidence of their title, and the officers of the corporation denied, as to their belief only, that the books and documents would prove the allegations in the cross bill:-Held, that this was not sufficient to protect them, but that the corporation were bound to produce the books and documents. Combe v. the Corporation of London, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 80.

S, having discovered that R was entitled to an estate in fee simple, subject to an existing life estate therein, agreed with R to take proceedings for the recovery of the same on condition of S's having one moiety thereof conveyed to him. The conveyance was executed by R of the moiety, and a suit was instituted by S in R's name, in which Y was employed as the solicitor. Whilst the suit was in the course of prosecution, R contracted with S to sell him the remaining moiety of the estate. The estate shortly afterwards fell into possession, when R, suspecting the conveyance and sale to have been fraudulently contrived between S and Y, filed his bill to set them aside. S and Y having put in their answers, containing schedules of documents, and papers, and correspondence between S and Y, having relation to the subject-matter of the former suit, it was decided that R was entitled to require production thereof, and also of the draft of a letter written by Y to S, relating to the sale of the second moiety, and also of cases prepared and opinions of counsel taken thereon, with reference to the subject-matter of the former suit; the same, though instituted by S, having been instituted for the benefit of both Ř and S, and Y having acted on the behalf and for the benefit of both those parties. Reynell v. Sprye, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 117; 10 Beav. 51.

Production refused of letters which passed between the respective solicitors with a view to a compromise, upon an express stipulation that they should not be referred to or used in any way to the prejudice of the defendant if an amicable arrangeWhiffen v. Hartwright, 11

ment was not come to. Beav. 111.

A B wrote the draft of a letter to his solicitor in order that the solicitor might write a similar one to him to be shewn to C D, and thereby induce him to enter into a contract. On a bill to set aside the contract for fraud,-Held, that the solicitor was bound to produce the letter, but not the other correspondence between himself and his client.

Order for production made on admissions in an answer filed prior to the amendment of the bill, but which did not vary the case. Reynell v. Sprye, 11 Beav. 618.

A bill was filed to impeach a deed, on the ground of fraud, and the production of cases and opinions and confidential letters by the solicitor relating to the execution of the deed was required. The defendants, who claimed under the deed, alleged that these documents had reference to the proceedings in the suit, and were privileged :-Held, that the

Ꮞ Ꭰ