160 McKIM v. THOMPSON.

lished as to be open to no further controversy at any subsequent
stage of the proceedings, (m)

These principles being settled, the next inquiry is, how far the
court may allow itself to range through this case in search of those
facts, which are to be thus taken, as admitted or established. The
plaintiffs contend, that the answer of a co-defendant, and certain
exhibits and proofs, taken in express reference to this motion,
should be read and considered. On the other hand, the defendant
Thompson urges, that the very satisfactory explanations of what
he calls his supplemental answer; or at least, that matter stated in
his petition, filed on the 31st of January last, as the substance of a
supplemental answer, which he ought to be permitted now to file,
should be taken into view. All these matters must be disposed of
before we can safely undertake to bring together what may be
considered as the admitted, or established facts in relation to this
motion.

The answer of the defendant John Bell, it has been urged, may
be resorted to, as belonging to the res gesta, to the same subject,
either as direct evidence, or for explanation, or illustration. It is,
in general, true, that the answer of one defendant cannot be used
as evidence for or against another defendant. Whatever may be
the extent of the exceptions to this rule, none of them embrace
this case;(n) for it is very clear, that Thompson has made no
reference to, nor admitted any thing which John Bell has said in
his answer: nor has the truth of any one of John Bell's allegations
been put in issue, before the auditor, or otherwise, and conclusively
established against Thompson. The answer of John Bell, the co-
defendant, cannot, therefore, be allowed to furnish any of those
facts on which the decision of the court must be founded on this
motion.

The plaintiffs have also directed the attention of the court to the
exhibits and proofs taken, under the order of the 10th of May last,
in reference to this motion, and have contended, that, in cases like
this, proofs of collateral facts and circumstances may be intro-
duced. But the authorities relied on to sustain this position,
point to an important distinction in the classification of cases of
this nature.

(m) Montgomery v. Clark, 2 Atk. 378; Rogers v. Rogers, 1 Anstr. 174; Quarrell
v. Beckford, 14 Tea. IT?; Yigrass v. Binfield, 3 Mad. 62; Rothwell v. Rothwell,
2 Sim. & Stu. 217.—(n) Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 832; Field v. Holland,
6 Cran, 24.