268 LINGAN v. HENDERSON

. B^t, tlthoagh it is a settled nde in equity as w«I as at law, 1
no one can be a witness who is interested in the event of the suit;
yet, as it is often proper in equity to make persons parties to the
suit who have no substantial interest in the whole subject of it; or
in that distinct and separate part of it as to which they may be
saUed upon to testify,—as where a bare trustee is maden co-plain-
tiff or co-defendant; or where it appears, that the plaintiff bus no
claim to any relief whatever against %ne or more of the defendants.;
or that he has cause of suit against 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 defend-
ants to his suit may, by that sort of mechanism, deprive the one
defendant of the benefit of the other's evidence.(t) 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 objections to be made and considered when the
testimony is brought in.(w) But where a defendant has been
examined and received as a witness to the whole cause of action,
the bill as to him must be dismissed with costs; because the plain-
tiff, by calling for and using his testimony, thus virtually admits,
that he has no cause of complaint against him.(i;)

Hence it may be assumed as a general rule, that where there
must be a decree against all the defendants because of their joint
or blended interests, there no one of them can be examined as a
competent witness in the case; and upon the same ground of 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

(t) Nightingale v. Dodd, Mosl. 229; Amb. 583; Murray v. Shadwell, 2 Ves* &
B. 404.— (a) Casey v. Beachfield, Prec. Ch. 411; Hddock v. Brown, 8 P. Will. 289.
Meadbufy v. Isdall, 9 Mod. 488; Gibson v. Albert, 10 Mod. 19; Dixon v. Parker,
2 Ves. 219; Man v. Ward, 2 Atk. 228; Barret v. Gore, 3 Atk. 401; Anniter v.
Swaatoa, Ainb. 393; Franklyn v. Colquhoun, 16 Ves. 219; De Tastet v Bordenave,
Jacob, S18; Fereday v. Wightwiek, 4 Rass, 114; Hougham v. Sandys, 2 Sim, St
Stu. 221. - (v) Thompson v. Harrison, 1 Cox. 344; Weymotith v. Boyer, 1 Vet, jun.
410; 2 Fow. Ex. Pra. 85,86.

,