¶1 The opinion of the court was delivered by
¶2 -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, *193 no decree can be made against him,-and because the party may have the full benefit of his testimony, by examining him as a witness. (Plummer v. May, 1 Ves. sen. 426. Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287. McNamara v. Williams, 6 Ves. 143).
¶3 But to this rule there appear to be some exceptions* Arbitrators have been suffered to be made defendants. (Lingood v. Croucher, 2 Atk. 396. Chicot v. Lequesne, 2 Ves. sen. 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).
¶4 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.
¶5 Per Curiam. — Dismiss the bill as to Blackwood with costs.
¶6*195 EQUITY CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OE DECEMBER TERM, 1832.