PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. WW1* there is an issue either direct or collablier on the forgery of papers, courts of equity or law will compel their production for inspec tion in advance of trial. A party to an ac tion at law may, before trial, maintain a bill for discovery of letters relied on by the other party to the suit and alleged to have been written by the plaintiff in the bill, but which the plaintiff alleges are forgeries. The pro duction of private writings in which another person has an interest may be had by a bill of discovery in proper cases, or in trials at law by an order for inspection, a notice to produce or a writ of subpcena duces tecum.
The order for inspection, though now pro vided for by statute in most states, was with in the practice of the English common-law courts at an early date. It is resorted to where documents in the possession of the other party are required for use in prepar ing the pleadings either by the plaintiff ; 4 Bing. 539 ; 8 Dowl. 118 ; Churchill v. Loes er, 89 Hun 613, 35 N. Y. Supp. 310 ; or the defendant ; 6 B. & S. 888; Earle v. Beman, 1 App. Div. 136, 36 N. Y. Supp. 833; but an order requiring a defendant to produce books at an examination by plain tiff to enable the latter to prepare his com plaint is erroneous ; Green v. Carey, 81 Hun 496, 31 N. Y. Supp. 8. Where there was but one copy of an agreement between two per sons, he who retained it would be compelled to produce it for the inspection of the other who might also take a copy of it, as, in the case of a partnership agreement ; 1 Brod. & B. 318; or a lease ; 4 Taunt. 666; or plans constituting part of an agreement sued on ; Frescole v. Lancaster, 70 Fed. 337.
The practice was originally confined to cases in which there was but one copy, but it was speedily extended to any case in which the parties seeking an inspection have an interest in the document ; 8 C. B. N. S. 617; nor was it necessary that it should be a single paper, but it extended to corre spondence, as, a letter accepting an oral of fer; id. An order for inspection might also
be obtained by a defendant who suggested the alteration or forgery of the document which formed the cause of action; 2 Man. & G. 758. In such a case it was usual and proper for the application to be founded on an affidavit attacking the genuineness of the paper ;, Jackson v. Jones, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 17.
Thp right of inspection is confined to doc uments supporting the case of the party ap PICng for it and does not extend to those vv •dh support the case of his opponent ; 1 Myl.' & K. 88 ; 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. 712, and note $ nor can the right be used for the pur pose of finding out the case of the other par ty MI1897] 2 Q. B. 62 ; or where the books ap Oita fot contain entries of a confidential, prheiteged nature, not relative to the action, legitimate information from them can be obtained at the trial, and they are in possession of the plaintiff and can be pro da4 under subpceua ; Lowenthal v. Leon ar 20 App. Div. 330, 46 N. Y. Supp. 818; and\rin a libel suit an order will not be made for Ike production of the original manuscript whelp the publication is admitted; [1897] 2 Q. B. 188 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 148. If, however, thetparty is entitled to the production of the document as being applicable to his case, his rigs is unaffected by the circumstance that it dtscloses the case of his opponent ; id.; or that it is evidence for the other party's case also ; Dock v. Dock, 180 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 411, 57 Am. St. Rep. 617.
The right of common-law courts to order an inspection was established in England by stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, § 6, which author ized the exercise of the power where an ac tion was pending, and documents were in the control of the other party, of which by a bill of discovery the inspection could be se cured. In the United States prior to the statutes of the same character which were passed in most states, the courts were posed to assume the power ; Utica Bank v. Hillard, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 62 ; and resort was more frequently had to a bill of discovery.