688 DUVALL v. THE FARMERS' BANK.
the trial in the court of common law. This is a proceeding which
can only be regarded as one of the modes whereby a party may
obtain testimony to sustain his case; and therefore, as on all simi-
lar applications, the granting of which maybe attended with delay,
where the propriety of granting it does not sufficiently appear from
the nature of the case; or the documentary evidence, called for, is
not described in the proceedings of the suit in which the applica-
tion is made, the petition should be at least as specially descriptive
of the evidence and proof of facts, expected to be obtained from
the books and papers required, as in an affidavit, stating the nature
and materiality of the proof expected to be obtained from an
absent witness, without whose testimony, a party alleges, that he
cannot safely go to trial, and, therefore moves for a continuance of
his case in a court of common law. The cases are so strikingly
analogous, that the rules and principles, with few exceptions, ap-
plicable to one class of cases, may be well applied to the other, (e)
In this instance, the petition is entirely too indefinite and general.
Whereupon, it is Decreed, that, the cause shewn being deemed
sufficient, the decree of the 11th instant be rescinded; and the
petition be dismissed with costs to be taxed by the register.
(c) 1 Vern. 334; Jessup v. Duport, Barnar. 192; Steward v. The East India
Company, 9 Mod. 387; Smith v. Northumberland, 1 Cox, 363; Burton v. Neville,
2 Cox, 242; Oldham v. Carleton, 4 Bro. C.C. 88; Rougemont v. The Royal Ex-
change, &c. 7 Ves. 304; The Princess of Wales v. Liverpool, 1 Swan. 119; Jones
v. Lewis, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 438; Mendizabel v. Machado, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 553.