478 HODGES v. MULLIKIN.—1 BLAND.

then it is obviously best for all concerned, that every doubt, as to
the grounds upon which the leave rests, should be finally and con-
clusively settled before the bill is filed; for otherwise there would
not be that security against the vexatious renewal of a suit which
ought to exist, as contemplated by the rule which has been so
long and so often approved; and besides, it it were otherwise, on
the hearing of such a bill of review, the question, as to the pro-
priety of the leave, would always be made or renewed as a pre-
liminary point at that advanced stage of the proceeding.

In England this matter may be attended with some difficulty;
as, I believe, the cheap and expeditious method of having testi-
mony taken before a justice of the peace, respecting any inter-
locutory matter requiring an early decision, which has been so
long and * well established as a practice in Maryland, Clap-
507 ham v. Thompson, ante, 124, note, is unknown to the Chan-
cery practice of England. On an application for leave to file a
bill of review on the ground of newly discovered matter, I con-
sider it most correct and conformable to the course of this Court,
in similar eases, that the propriety of granting the leave should
be at once fully investigated; that proofs should be admitted to
be introduced in relation to it; and that the question should be then
finally determined; since the evidence should any be wanted by
either party, may be so fully and so readily collected by authoriz-
ing the parties to take testimony before a justice of the peace, to
be read at the hearing of the application. But if no proof should
be asked for, then the application may be determined upon the
petition only as sworn to by the party applying. I am therefore
of opinion, that according to the principles and practice in Chan-
cery of this State, the testimony in this case has been properly
taken; and therefore must now be attended to so far as it can be
considered as coming from competent witnesses.

It is objected that the defendant Thomas Harwood is an incom-
petent witness upon this occasion, because he is interested in hav-
ing this decree thrown entirely open by a bill of review. In all
cases, where there are two or more defendants, the Court may, if
the liabilities of the defendants are distinct, or are susceptible of
being separated, pass a decree affecting each differently, or in
favor of one and against another of them. But if the case is so
blended and entire as to impose none other than a joint liability
upon all, so that the responsibility of no one can be separated from
the lest, then there must be a decree against all or none. And if
any one defendant, in such an entire case, makes out a good de-
fence, the bill must be dismissed as to all; and there can be no
decree against any other defendant, even if he should have ad-
mitted the plaintiff's case, or the bill should have been taken pro
confesso as against him. This position I take to be sufficiently
clear and satisfactory upon the bare statement of it. But where