GLENN VS. BAKER. 77

actually released the petitioner upon the terms specified in the
deed. In that case the debts due to the favored creditors had
not then matured, and were at the time of the transfer wholly
unprovided for; whilst in this, the preferred parties held collat-
erals to a larger nominal amount than the debts due them, and
might therefore be regarded as preferred; even before the exe-
cution of the deed. In that case, there was an actual transfer
and delivery to one of the selected creditors, for the benefit of
himself, and others similarly situated, of the entire stock in trade
of the insolvents, with directions to sell the same, and to apply
the money to the payment exclusively of those creditors, with-
out any reference whatever to the rest; although they knew,
that many of them must necessarily go unsatisfied. Whilst
in this, though a preference is given to one class, the deed pro-
fesses to provide for others, and holds out inducements to them
to accede to its provisions.

These differences between these cases are, I think, suffi-
ciently broad and distinct, to separate them by a well defined
line, and to render a conclusion perfectly sound as to the one,
altogether erroneous as to the other.

The preceding observations have been made without refer-
ence to the answer of Childs, and upon the hypothesis that his
answer cannot be read as evidence against the complainant.

If the answer can be read, then it is manifest, that the diffi-
culties in the way of the plaintiff are greatly increased.

The question, therefore, is, may it not be read by the defend-
ant Baker, as evidence against the complainant ?

It is the established rule in this state, that the answer of one
defendant in chancery, is not evidence against the other de-
fendants—the Court of Appeals having so expressly decided,
in opposition to the cases of Field vs. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8,
and Osborn vs. The U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat., 738, in which
under the circumstances of those cases, a different rule was
settled. Jones vs. Hardesty, 10 Gill & Johns., 464. But that
is not the question here. It is not an attempt to read the an-
swer of a defendant against his co-defendant, but the proposi-
tion is, may not one defendant read the answer of a co-defend-
7*