HENRY v. ·raAv1aLE12s’rNs. co. _15
`HENBY__12. Tn.¤,vnLnns’ Ins. Co.
(Orrouit Court, D. Colorado.` May 16, 1888.) .
1. EIqurn—Pmcrron-Booxs ann PAPEBS—·RECORDS or Conromrrou Noi A
  A   ‘ f15h;: eourt will not grant a motion to compel the opening of the records of
a corporation not a party to the suit, but whose records it is claimed would
disclose something of importance to the litigation. _
2. _Bm·r-On- AND COUNTER-CLAIM—JUDGMENTS ron Cosrs. ,
‘ ` ‘WIféreA. has judgment for costs against B., and B. has a like judgment in
another case against A., one may be equitably setoff against the other pro
tame; particularly where one of the parties is insolvent.
In Equity. On motions.
r __W0kottd;   for complainant. . i
_ J. P.' Brockway and Patterson &: Thomas, for defendant. _
`hnnwna,  . In Henry v. Insurance Oo. are . two or three motions
' which were, partially at least, submitted to me during the vacation., One
f is amotionto compel theopening of certain records of a corporation not
fa party tothe suit, but whose records it is claimed would disclose some-
, thing of jmportance to the litigation. I overruled that motion tempo-
rarily during vacation, and after hearing fuller statements of counsel, the
I otherda,y,_I   strengthened in the opinion that I then had, not merely
by thewfactl thatthis is the record of an independent corporation not a
Q party to this suit`, but also by the fact ofthe manner, in which this title
has passed from one to another, and has finally come to be in the corpo-
_ration.A V That motion will remain overruled as heretofore. In reference
to the costs, there being an interlocutory decree in favor of complainant
F for costs up to date, the draft of the decree prepared by each `counsel
_containing_the same provision,.I accepted that prepared by the complain-
ant, and after making somechanges, signed it. It would be an extreme
I case, that would call upon the court to change a decreeth us prepared and
_ entered, and Isee no reason why it should be changed. The complain-
ant isentitled to the payment of his costs. The second motion in refer-
ence to those costs is that there be ordered an equitable set-off of costs
adjudged in another case between the same parties. The matter of set-oif
depends upon purely equitable principles, and I do not see anyreason
Q why it is not equitable that there should be such a set-off. If A. has a
 judgment inhbis favor against B., and B; has a judgment in his favor
_againstA., there isno wronfgin setting off one against theother pro tanto.
If ieachiparty issolvent, o 'course it makes no difference, andjif one is
not, the equitable reasons for the set-0H` are only stronger; ”Tbe motion,
therefore, in respect to that set-off pro tanto is sustained. The third mo-
tion is in reference to some garnishee proceedings. I do not think a
judgment for costs can be subjected to such gamishee proceedings, and
that motion will be overruled.