¶1Execution of commission.
¶2X commission, issued to four commissioners jointly, was executed by three only, two of whom were of the defendant’s nomination; on objection by the defendant to the reading of the depositions, it was held, that the commission was not well executed: commissioners do not derive their authority, from the parties, but from the court.
¶3A commission had issued to four commissioners, jointly, to take the depositions of witnesses in England. It was executed and returned by three of the commissioners only, two of whom, however, were of the defendant’s nomination.
¶4At the trial of the cause, the defendant’s counsel objected to the reading of the depositions ; and cited 1 Bae. Abr. 202 ; 2 Inst.
¶5The plaintiffs’ counsel observed, that the commission had not issued in the usual form; but insisted, that as the defendant’s *commissioners p¡. had attended, the objection could not be maintained on his part. L
¶6Ingersoll and Todd, for the plaintiffs. Franklin and Dallas, for the defendant.
¶8— The objection is fatal. The commissioners do not derive their authority from the parties, but from the court ;(b) and as it is a special authority, it must be strictly pursued. The power given to four, cannot be well executed by three commissioners. (c)
¶9The evidence overruled.