Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-05
Pnislon 4 zvarss, Huztes 4 Smith.

There the 5iI which, On argument was dis
allowed ard the defendant appealed under Sec 35 Of the
only question to be determined is whether upon the
facts cha ged in ie bill the conpaipauts are entitled 10 dis
c2yey from tie defendants the unexeeuted writing
exhibited with the biz alleged to contain the terms Of the
The substance OF he bill, far necessary rotce
is that IN October ESQ, he cOplanantS determined
contracted with defendants to do TIE carpenters and oineTs
work Of said house, that the Of the
tract were aed upon and reduced to writing and that said
writing which Is made exhibit contains the ane entire
contract as agreed upon by the parties and that all its terms
were fuy assented by the defendants That said writing not
signed by the parties the time for the that there
n,erneaons and blots upon is face And il vas agIesd
netWeen ne parties mutnay that the eoEplainan Eston,
should take the paper and make two copies o. IT, to be
ed b. the parties each Of the contracting parties.
mat ail the paper away IA safe and nadFert-
emily omitted to copy it. The I'LL alleges, however,, that not
vhstandng this neglect the work undertaken and per
formed under sad contract and not Otherwise II further
sisted that the denant have brought suit FOR said work. AID
for the hoous by the Of the written they
are entitled 70 demand Il Is alleged that there Wit
writing.
The hill prays for discovery under oah, and also to have
said contract and executed specifically, that The parties
b required to execute it, thar be used the trial at
Law, and for general relief
The bill does not opinion, Eske for any thing
more than Scovery AMI to that extent think it ought
to the compaiuan IN their defence at establish that
the writing contains The Of the contract
mutually understood agreed upon by PARTIES charged
In the bill - =
1t that under the statute this discovery might have
been had ia law in hich the suit pending
tbs does effect the jurisdiction Court Of equity
for obvious may have thought pabs
10 the latter trihana
II tine the entire reduced writing
az unerstf Cd and asserted to by the parties, The paper s
certainly the satisfactory and reliable esidenc II Il
in the power Of the 9ompanauts sduce parO eydeng
Of its contents. This much be said without Intending be
understood iutmating that it grade u evidence In
the legal sense OF that term.
Regare Of evidence merely the execution q
the paper IS Of Consequence. The inquiry is whether
matter Of ct TIE paper contains the evidence the true
msnt.
The execution Of the paper would have furnished, at least,
PFHa ae evidence Of that fact and its nonexsuton forces
the eompanants other evidence Of its authenticity
But still inquiry IL this view be correct, the
paper admitted by dsfsndant would be available for
the mpanants the trial law, in tie state in which is
If we're executel AID they much entitled the dis
sought, they would be demand its production, IN
the possession ofdefsndanls wngully Withheld from them
The objection that not distinctly alleged IN the BILL that
complsiuans otherwise Troye s terms Of The agreement
think, tenable. A arcady ntmateds think the
llainans emitted the discovery asked for without refer
to the inquiry whether they have in their power 10
prove the agreement BY parOi svenee But, this
the that there witness to said contract,
the made ageed upon, ought upon demurrer
the bill, he sufficient 70 the ofjecton
We mean disturb the decision in The Of hte
sides Laferty, Hump q though il carries the doctrine
quite far a re feel inclined 10 90.
regards neg o. the compisnaEts 70 have the
prepared and eXscueI agreed upon, whether
purely Of nadyea alleged, OF Intention
part abandon the contract, Will be matter sPen
the consideration Of ;he jury.
Decree affirmed. WRIGHT.
correct copy, J. p CLARK, Clerk.