. 252 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND.

one only as to one subject and against another as to a different
subject, but has no cause of suit against them all jointly; unless
the Court permits the disinterested co-plaintiff or co-defendant to
be examined as a witness for the others in such case,—the really
interested plaintiff may lose his right; or the plaintiff by thus
making two or more persons defendants to his suit may, by that
sort of mechanism, deprive the one defendant of the benefit of the
other's evidence. Nightingale v. Dodd, Mosl. 229; Ami). 583; Murray
v. Shadicell, 2 Vex. & B. 404. And therefore it is quite common in
Chancery, to apply by petition, to have one of the parties examined
as a witness, subject to all just exceptions; and unless the interest of
the party, so proposed to be examined, is perfectly apparent, the
order is granted almost as a matter of course, leaving the objec-
tions to be made and considered when the testimony is brought in.
Casey v. Beachfield, Prec. Ch. 411; Piddock v. Brown, 3 P. Will.
288; Meadbury v. Isdalt, 9 Mod. 438: Gibson v. Albert, 10 Mod. 19;
Dixon v. Parker, 2 Ves. 219; Man v. Ward, 2 Atk. 228; Barret v.
Gore, 3 Atk. 401: Armiter v. Swanton, Amb. 393; Franklyn v. Col-
quhoun, 16 Ves. 219; De Tastet v. Bordenare, Jacob, 516; Fereday
v. Wightwick, 4 Russ. 114; Hougham v. Sandys, 2 Sim. & Stu. 221.
But where a defendant has been examined and received, as a wit-
ness to the whole cause of action, the bill as to him must be dis-
missed with costs; because the plaintiff, by calling for and using
his testimony, thus virtually admits, that he has no cause of com-
plaint against him. Thompson v. Karrison, 1 Cox, 344; Weymouth
v. Boyer, 1 Ves. Jun. 416; 2 Foic. Ex. Pru. 85, 86.

Hence it may be assumed as a general rule, that where there
must be a decree against all the defendants because of their join!
or blended interests, there no one of them can be examined as a
competent witness in the case; and upon the same ground oi the
indivisible and inseparable nature of their interests, the defence
of any one, which shews, that the whole of such alleged joint or
blended interest, never existed or has been barred or satisfied,
must * necessarily preclude all relief against any one of
269 them. But where it appears, that the cause of suit against
each arises out of distinct subjects; there, as each defendant is a
competent witness as to the subject in which he is not interested,
so there may. in respect to such different subjects, be separate
decrees against each.

But here it has been shown, that the legal representatives of
John Henderson are, all of them, liable to be charged by the con-
tract set out in the bill, to the extent of the assets which have
come to their hands respectively. And that, although each of
them, to the extent of those assets, is so entirely liable to the
plaintiffs as to entitle them to any relief, under the general prayer
of their bill, that may be deemed most for their benefit; yet these
defendants, as against each other, have an equitable claim to con-