cases where the auditor may be required to take testimony to be reported to the court, he shall observe and pursue the same mode and form of examination, and writing down the testimony, as that prescribed to be observed by examiners. 55. him; and in addition to his right and power to examine the parties to the cause, and all witnesses produced by them, or which they may cause to be summoned, on oath or affirmation touching the matters of the reference, he shall also have power and authority to require the production of all books, papers, writings, vouchers and other documents applicable thereto, where, by the principles and The foregoing rules shall be in force from practice of courts of equity, the production and after the 1st day of March, A. D. 1920, of such writings may be compelled; and if and shall be taken to regulate all cases and any party so liable to produce such books, procedure to which they are applicable; and papers, writings, vouchers or other docu-all other cases and procedure not therein ments, shall fail or refuse so to do, when provided for shall remain to be regulated and required by the auditor, such party shall, governed by the existing statute law of the without delay, be reported to the court by state, and by the general rules and principles the auditor, with the facts of the case, that of equity pleading and practice, as heretofore the proper proceeding may be taken thereon, existing, so far as the same may not be changby way of attachment or otherwise, as jus-ed or modified, by the adoption of the foretice and the settled practice may require. going rules. But nothing in the foregoing rules shall, in any manner, be taken or con54. (Code, Art. 16, Sec. 24.) strued to prevent or restrict the several cirAll parties accounting before the auditor euit courts, as courts of equity, from making shall produce their respective accounts in the and enforcing, from time to time, such genform of debtor and creditor, and any of the eral rules and orders as they may deem other parties interested, who shall not be proper for the good government and regulasatisfied with the account so produced, shall tion of their respective courts and the probe at liberty to examine the accounting par-ceedings thereof, and the officers and suitors ty, viva voce, or upon written interrogatories, therein; provided, that such rules and orders before the auditor, who shall write down and be not inconsistent with the foregoing rules, report the testimony, if required. And in all or the statutes of this state. Chernov v. Blakeslee (Conn.). Chicago Bonding & Insurance Co. v. State (Md.) 908 772 Damers v. Trident Fisheries Co. (Me.). 418 925 410 832 429 926 58 857 Chodes v. Everett B. Clark Seed Co. City Coal Co. v. Marcus (Conn.).. City of Salisbury, Farmers' & Planters' 1 Delone v. First Nat. Bank (Pa.). Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Henry Nuhs Co. (N. J. Sup.). 223 171 273 9 446 879 745 Diaz v. Warren Bros. Co. (Conn.). 206 919 919 195 798 Director General of Railroads, Goy v. (N. 926 H.) 855 City & Suburban Land Trust, Rowe v. (R. I.) 747 Director General of Railroads, Rhodehouse v. (N. J. Sup.).... 662 Clark, Fleischmann v. (Md.). 851 District Court, First Judicial Dist., Mon Clark, Hayes v. (Conn.). 781 mouth County, Wilson v. (N. J.).. 927 Clark v Summerfield Co. (R. I.). 577 Dobbin v. Plager (N. J.). 926 Clark Bros. v. United Rys. & Electric Co. of Baltimore City (Md.). Clark Seed Co., Chodes v. (Conn.). Collins v. Hustis (N. H.). Colucci v. Edison Portland Cement Co. (N. J.) 449 Donatonia, Kanouse v. (N. J.). 4 Drazen V. New Haven 829 Doherty v. Egan Waste Co. (N. J. Ch.). 58 Dole, Hay v. (Me.).. 499 713 11 897 730 796 401 513 Taxicab Co. Coming Egg Farm, Bayne v. (N. J. Ch.).. 289 (Conn.) 861 879 Duchatkiewicz v. Golumbuski (Del. Ch.).. 430 Duff v. Husted (Conn.).. 186 652 578 Duston, Williams v. (N. H.). 690 Edison Portland Cement Co., Colucci v. Edminister, Burrill Nat. Bank v. (Me.), Edwards v. Western Maryland R. Co. Egan Waste Co., Doherty v. (N. J. Ch.).. 499 Egbertson, Barrett v. (N. J. Ch.).. Egyptian Lacquer Mfg. Co. v. Chemical E. Horton & Sons, Procaccino v. (Conn.).. 594 757 Hahnel Bros. & Co. v. Alfred Hanson & Son 464 Harwood Electric Co., Derrick v. (Pa.).. 148 389 ... Hayes v. Clark (Conn.), 781 687 Healey, Caveny v. (N. J.).. 925 654 Gates v. A. G. Dewey Co. (Vt.).. 446 Herbst, Twiss v. (Conn.).. 201 343 Goodwin v. Concord (N. H.). Gordon's Will, In re (Del. Super.) Gosselin v. Griffin (N. H.)... Goudie v. Fisher (N. H.). ... Goupiel v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (Vt.). Goy v. Director General of Railroads Grabowski, Howell v. (Del. Super.). Grand Trunk R. Co., Goupiel v. (Vt.). |