Logan v. Farmers' Bank

refused the continuance, unless the papers were specified. This was necessary, in order to test the amount of diligence used in discovering them.

The plaintiff, John Logan, was then called, and having been sworn, said the papers he wanted were a mortgage recorded in Maryland, and a bond. He had called on the counsel at the Bank, and on the President, for a copy of an agreement with the Bank, by which the Bank agreed not to charge interest on a part of the money secured by the bond and mortgage; and it was refused. This is one of the papers I refer to. There was such a paper.

The Court continued the cause, because of the want of this paper. The bond and mortgage do not present a legal ground; but they illustrate the necessity of disclosing the kind of papers in motion to continue a cause for want of them, in order to judge of the diligence used to procure them. The bond and mortgage are legally in the defendants’ custody or power, and a notice to them should have compelled the production of the original. The mortgage is on record, and a copy could be produced by the use of diligence. But in regard to this agreement to remit interest, it is sworn to have been refused, and the plaintiff has not yet been able to procure secondary evidence of it.

The case was continued*