LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 251

the peculiar nature of his cause of action, or because of the nature
of the several defences made to it, may obtain relief against some
one or more of the defendants, although he may totally fail in his
suit against all the others. In equity this more frequently happens
than at law; but in all cases, it arises not from the mere manner
or form of proceeding, but from the substantial nature of the case
itself, or of the defence which may have been made. Royal v.
Johnson, 1 Rand. 421.

In all cases where there are a plurality of defendants, they are
each of them charged as such; because of their having an interest
in or being jointly or otherwise liable to the alleged cause of suit.
Hence it is in general true, that the answer of one defendant can-
not be read in evidence against another; because in such case
there is no opportunity for cross-examination; and also because
eacli defendant, considered as a necessary party, must have some
interest in the event of the suit; and is, therefore, an incompetent
witness. 2 Mad. Cha. 441; Fercday v. Wightwick. 4 Russ. 114.
But there are exceptions to this general rule: as where the defend-
ant against whom the answer is proposed to be read claims under
him who made it; for a defendant cannot deny the title as thus
set forth by him under whom he claims. Field v. Holland, 6 Cran.
24; Gabon v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 832; Jones v. Magill, ante 177.
Or where the defendants are partners in trade, and as such are
then competent to bind each other by such a contract as that of
which they speak. Clark v. Vanriemsdyk,. 9 Cran. 150. So too
in the peculiar case of corporations, one or more of its officers may
be made co-defendants, whose answers may be received against
the body politic; and so likewise as to arbitrators and attorneys,
whose answers may be read against the other parties; and this
from necessity, or because such co-defendants may be converted
into witnesses. Rybott v. Bnrrell, 2 Eden, 133; Dummer v. Corpo.
of Chippenham, 14 Ves. 252; Le Texier v. Anapach, 15 Van. 104.
And so it would seem at common law there is a case where, from
necessity, one of the defendants may be called on as a witness to
testify for the plaintiff against the co-defendants, "inasmuch as
some books have said, that though the witness named in the deed
be named a disseisor in the writ, yet he shall be sworn a,s a wit-
ness to the deed." Co. Litt. 6.

* But although it is a settled rule in equity as well as at 268
law, that no one can be a witness who is interested in the
event of the suit; yet, as it is often proper in equity to make per-
sons parties to the suit who have no substantial interest in the
whole subject of it; or in that distinct and separate part of it as
to which they may be called upon to testify,—as where a bare
trustee is made a co-plaintiff or co-defendant; or where it appears,
that the plaintiff has no claim to any relief whatever against one
or more of the defendants; or that he has cause of suit against