78 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ant against the plaintiff, who, by his bill, called upon that de-
fendant to respond upon oath to such questions as he thought
fit to propound to him. It seems to be conceded, that there is
no decision of our Court of Appeals which denies to a defend-
ant this privilege, of reading the answer of his co-defendant
against the plaintiff, the case of Gardiner & Bowling vs. Har-
dey & Simms, 12 G. & J., 380, expressly avoiding a decision
of the question; and it is thought, that the reasoning of the
court in Jones vs. Hardesty, against the admissibility of the
answer of one defendant as evidence against another, so far
from leading to the conclusion, that it may not be read against
the plaintiff, tends rather to establish the reverse. In the case
of Crawford & Sellman vs. Taylor, 6 G. 8f J., 323, the answer
of the insolvent, who was a defendant, was read, and consti-
tutes a part of the proof relied upon by the court, as showing
that the transfer in that case was not made in contemplation of
taking the benefit of the insolvent laws.

The case of Mill vs. Gore, 20 Pick. Rep., 28, is express,
that though the answer of one defendant is not evidence against
the other, it is evidence against the plaintiff. And in the case
of Field et al. vs. Holland et al., 6 Cranch 8, chief justice
Marshall, in speaking for the court, decided, that the answer of
a defendant when responsive to the bill, is evidence against the
plaintiff in favor of the other defendants; and though the
Court of Appeals of this state expressed their dissent from this
decision, in so far as it affirmed that the answer of one defend-
ant might be read against others claiming through him, no dis-
sent was expressed from the proposition, that the answer would
be evidence for a co-defendant against the plaintiff. The case
of Morris vs. Nixon, 1 Howard, 119, 126, does not seem to
me to decide the question one way or the other. In the case
of Dunham, vs. Gates et al., 1 Hoffman, 185, the assistant
vice chancellor does say, that the answer of one of the defend-
ants could not be used on behalf of the others; but as the bill
was dismissed, notwithstanding this remark, there was no ne-
cessity for a careful consideration of the question, and from the
manner in which the observation was made, and the absence