DUVALL v. THE FARMERS BANK.—2 BLAND. 651
similar applications, the granting of which may be attended with
delay, where the propriety of granting it does not sufficiently ap-
pear from the nature of the case; or the documentary evidence,
called for, is not described in the proceedings of the suit in which
the application is made, the petition should be at least as specially
descriptive of the evidence and proof of facts, expected to be ob-
tained from the books and papers required, as in an affidavit, stat-
ing 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 con-
tinuance of his case in a Court of common law. The cases are so
strikingly analogous, that the rules and principles, with few ex-
ceptions, applicable to one class of cases, may be well applied to
the other. 1 Vern. 334; Jessop 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 Exchange, &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. 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sufficient, the decree of the 11th instant be rescinded; and the peti-
tion be dismissed with costs to be taxed by the register.