Opinion
February, 1797 (Adjourned).
Bayard, for the defendant, objected to the reading of the depositions on the ground that the rule gave no power to take them out of the state.
Vandyke argued in favor of their admission and insisted that the manner in which they were taken was warranted by practice.
A rule had been obtained in this cause to take the depositions of witnesses generally before any judge or justice of the peace. Upon the return of the depositions it appeared that one of the witnesses lived and was examined in the State of New Jersey and the other in the State of Maryland.
The practice has been invariably to issue a commission when the intention was to take depositions out of the state, unless in the cases where a special rule for the purpose was agreed to by the parties. A general rule to take depositions before any judge or justice of the peace is confined to the state. If the party designs under his rule to take depositions out of the state, he must have it so expressed in the rule. The depositions in the present case are not warranted by the rule under which they were taken and cannot therefore be read.
PER CURIAM.
Depositions rejected.