BINNEY'S CASE. 109

* without prejudice to the case as regards all others. But it hap-
pens, unfortunately, in this case, that if the bill were to be dis-
missed as against these defendants, who have no interest in the
case, there would be no defendant in court, and the whole suit
would be totally broken up.

Where there are a plurality of defendants, they may join in making
answer to the bill, or they may answer separately, or they may
make a joint and several answer as best suits their convenience or
pleasure. But, in whatever form the response may be couched, it
is essential, if not waived by the plaintiff, that each defendant
should swear to his answer; and therefore, when an answer pur-
ports to be the answer of two or more, and is not sworn to by all,
it may be taken off the file, or can only be received as the answer
of him who has sworn to it. (s)

In this instance, it appears, that on the 21st of July last, an
answer was filed, which purports, and is set forth in the beginning
to be ' The separate answer of the President and Directors of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,' who, by this description,
on reference to the bill, are determined to be * Charles F. Mercer,
the president of the said company, and Joseph Kent, Andrew
Stewart, Peter Lenox, Frederick May, Walter Smith, and Phineas
Janney, the directors of the said company. But, of all those
seven persons whose answer it purports to be, it has been sworn
to by Charles F. Mercer only. It can, therefore, be received, at
most, as being no more than his answer alone; and so taken, it
appears, that the other six persons have not, as yet, answered at
all. Hence, according to the general rule, this motion for a disso-
lution could not be sustained upon the answers of only two of these
defendants; unless it should appear, that the defendants who had
not answered, had neither any interest in, or material knowledge
of the matter; or that their answers might be dispensed with for
some special reason, (t) But, in this instance the interest, and the
knowledge of those directors, it is evident,, must be, to the full, as
extensive as those of Mercer and McCord; and, consequently, there
is no reason why this plaintiff should not have the benefit of all
their answers, before he is called upon to shew cause why he

(s) Harris v. James, 3 Bro. C. C. 399; Done v. Read, 2 Ves. & B. 310; Cooke v.
Westall, 1 Mad. Rep. 265; Cope v. Parry, 1 Mad. Rep. 83; Griffiths v. Wood, 11
Ves. 62; Pieters v. Thompson, Coop. Rep. 249.—(t) Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 177;
Onion v. McComas, ante 83, note.
15 v.2