
    Bass v. Bass.
    February Term, 1810.
    1. Bill of Discovery — When Proper.--A bill for discovery lies only in cases where the plaintiff’s right cannot be established without the discovery sought for. It does not lie, therefore, to discover the ñame of a negro child, whose mother is known, nor the profits of slaves, ol which a Jury are the best ¡ udges.
    2. Detinue — For an infant Negro — Description. -An action of detinue may be maintained for an infant negro child of such a mother, without any other description.
    The bill in this case was filed to recover some negroes, to the recovery of which at law, there was no other objection than the want of a name to a child, and the profits of Doll the mother; of all which the bill sought a discovery. The jurisdiction of the Court was objected to by the answer, and that was the only question argued and submitted.
    
      
      BilI of Discovery™When It Lies. — In Grafton v. Reed, 26 W. Va. 440, it is said: “It is well established, that, if the bill on its face shows that the specific: account can be fairly determined in a court of law* and that no discovery is necessary to the relief vsoug-ht, the simple fact that the bill contains vague and general statements of complications of the accounts between the parties without giving specific facts to show that such complications exist in the particular accounts to be adjusted, ora statement that the remedy at law is inadequate, or that some discovery is required from the defendant, will not support the jurisdiction of a court of equity. In such cases such statements will be considered merely as colorable and employed as pretexts for foisting a jurisdiction upon equity courts-which does not pertain to them, and they will be disregarded and jurisdiction declined. 1 Story’s 3Sq. Jur., sec. 458 a; Lafever v. Billmyer, 5 W. Va. 33-41; Bass v. Bass, 4 Hen. & M. 478.”
      Also on the question of discovery the principal case is cited in Hale v. Clarkson, 23 Gratt. 47; Yates v. Stuart, 39 W Va. 129, 19 S. E. Rep. 424. See mono-graphic nota on “Bills of Discovery” appended to Lyons v. Miller, 6 Gratt. 427.
    
    
      
      Detinue. — 1The principal case is reported in Elam v. Bass, 4 Munf. 301. See monographic note on “Detinue and Replevin” appended to Hunt v. Martin, 8 Gratt. 578.
    
   By the Chancellor.

That an action of detinue might be maintained at law, for Doll and her infant child, I have no doubt, as this would be as good a description of the latter as the name would be of the former; and, therefore, the judgment might be specifically executed: so that the want of a name to the child was no ground for coming into equity: and as to the profits, a jury are always the best judges of the annual worth of negroes: so that this affords no ground. *The rule is this, that wherever a party’s right depends upon a discovery, a Court of Equity has jurisdiction: but wherever a discovery is sought for, without which it is apparent upon the bill itself that the plaintiff may proceed at law, it shall not entitle him to relief in equity, though there be no demurrer. But wherever a discovery is sought, which from the face of the bill gives to the Court of Equity jurisdiction, there it will be sustained, unless it be taken away by a plea. Now it is clear to my mind, that the discovery sought by the present bill, was for no other purpose than to attempt to give jurisdiction to this Court, and that without such discovery, the plaintiff’s remedy was clear at law.

Bill dismissed, without prejudice, with costs. _  