Arbitrators, officers of corporations, and solicitors who have aided their clients to commit frauds may be made defendants. But the rule is different as to a mere witness, who has no interest in the cause, and against whom no relief can be given. If he answers, the bill, at the hearing, will be dismissed as to him, with costs.
The cause was held under advisement several terms.
HALL, J.
It appears to be a general rule that a person who is merely a witness shall not be made a party defendant; because, having no interest in the cause, no decree can be made against him, and because the party may have the full benefit of his testimony by (193) examining him as a witness. Plummer v. May, 1 Ves., Sr., 426; Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves., 287; McNamara v. Williams, 6 Ves., 143.
But to this rule there appears to be some exceptions. Arbitrators have been suffered to be made defendants. Lingwood v. Croucher, 2 Atk., 396; Chicot v. Lequesne, 2 Ves., Sr., 315. Clerks of corporations may also be made defendants, for the sake of discoveries, because the answers of corporations are not upon oath, and are therefore not evidence. Wyche v. Meal, 3 P. Wms., 310; Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Br. C. R., 469; Dummer v. Chipenham, 14 Ves., 251. And Lord Redesdale has decided that a solicitor, assisting his client in obtaining a fraudulent release, was properly made defendant, and liable for costs, if the principal was insolvent. Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Sch. Lef., 227.
In the present case the defendant Blackwood appears to have no interest in the cause, and no decree can be entered against him. It was therefore unnecessary to make him a party. The plaintiff might have had the benefit of his testimony without doing so. For these reasons, I am of opinion that he should be allowed his costs.
PER CURIAM. Bill dismissed as to Blackwood, with costs.