CH.  XVII.]  CANCELLATION    OF   DEEDS.  11

is  sought,  and  the  naked  case,  made  by  the  bill,  is  for  a  mere
delivery  up  or  cancellattion  of  the  instrument,  not  averring  any
defect  of  proof,  but  simply  stating,  that  the  instrument  is  void;
there  might  be  more  color  for  some  scruple  in  entertaining  the
bill.^  [And  the  delivery  up  of  a  written  instrument  of  a
former  closed  indebtedness,  which  remained  in  adverse  hands,
but  upon  which  no  action  or  claim  in  Equity  existed,  has  been
refused,  where  the  only  ground  alleged  was  a  fear  of  a  subse-
quent suit  upon  it,  or  an  injury  to  the  complainant's  credit,  if
the  document  were  exhibited.^]  Still,  in  the  former  case,  the
specific  relief  required  being  such  aS  a  Court  of  Law  cannot
give,  aind  yet  the  instrument  being,  from  its  very  nature,  and
its  apparent  validity,  calculated  to  throw  some  doubt  upon  the
title,  or  being  capable  of  future  misuse,  the  justice  of  a  Court
of  Equity  would  seem  to  require,  even  under  such  circum-
stances, an  interposition  to  prevent  serious  mischiefs.^

I  700.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  doubts  or  difficul-
ties formerly  entertained  upon  this  subject,  they  seem  by  the
more  modern  decisions  to  be  fairly  put  at  rest ;  and  the  juris-
diction is  now  maintained  in  the  fullest  extent.*  And  these
decisions  are  founded  on  the  true  principles  of  Equity  Juris-


1  See  Gray  v.  Mathias,  5  Ves.  286  ;  Franco  v.  Bolton,  3  Ves.  368.-

2  Wilkes  V.  Wilkes,  4  Edw.  Ch.  E.  630.
3  Hamilton  v.  Cummings,  1  Johns.  Ch.  K.  520  to  .'524  ;  Hawkshaw  v.  Parkins,
2  Swanst.  R.  546.
