case which v meal see Dummer v corporation of Chippenham Ves Jun Prioleau v  unite state l r Eq unite state v Wagner l r v Eq Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can  ab pl the secretary and bookkeeper of the eastindia company be make defendant  to a bill for a discovery of some entry and order of the company the defendant  demurrer for that they may be examine as witness also because their answer can  be read against the company the demurrer over rule lest there shall be a  failure of justice in regard the company be not liable to a prosecution for  perjury though their answer be never so false in a bill bring by the plaintiff  against the east India company one of the officer of the company be make a  defendant in order to discover some entry and order in the book of the company  peer William er p peer William the defendant demurrer show for cause that it  be not so much as pretend by the bill that he be any way interest in the  matter in question and that his answer if it be to be put it can not be read  against the company as the answer of one defendant can be make use of against  the other that the plaintiff if he please may examine the defendant as a  witness that by the same reason the plaintiff may make the servant of any  private person a defendant and that it be plain the plaintiff can have no  decree against the defendant the officer of the company Lord chancellor this  be a thing of consequence which I do not remember to have be ever judicial  determine but so far be plain that the plaintiff be entitle to and ought to  have a discovery of the matter charge in the bill it be a different case where  a private person and where a company be defendant for the latter can answer no  otherwise than under their common seal and though they answer peer William  never so false still there be no remedy against they for perjury it have be a  usual thing for a plaintiff in order to have a discovery to make the secretary  bookkeeper or any other officer of a company defendant who have not demurrer  but answer whereas if this demurrer shall be allow the officer of company be  never likely to answer again and though the plaintiff be entitle to a  discovery he will never be able to get one consequent there will be a failure  of justice beside notwithstanding the answer of the defendant the officer can  be read against the company yet it may be of use to direct the plaintiff how  to draw and pen his interrogatory towards obtain a better discovery and since  no instance be produce where such demurrer have be allow and it may be very  mischievous and injurious to the subject by allow thereof to deprive they of  that discovery to which in common justice they be entitle and as on the other  hand no manner of inconvenience can ensue from oblige such officer of a  company to answer therefore overrule the demurrer Reg lib b fol one reason  among other why the answer of one defendant can be make use of against another  seem to be because if that be allow I may make a friend codefendant who may  put in a answer in my favour and the other defendant will have no opportunity  of crossexamine to it Morse v royal Ves it be a general rule that no one need  be make a party against who if bring to a hear the plaintiff can have no  decree Whitworth v Davis V b griffin v archer Anst S c state Ves I Lloyd v  Lander mad smith v snow mad thus a residuary legatee need not be make a party  and for the same reason in a bill bring by the creditor of a bankrupt against  the assignee under the commission the bankrupt himself need not be make a  party by the master of the roll de goll v ware though with regard to make the  bankrupt a party it seem former to have be hold otherwise see vern and however  the rule lie down by the master of the roll may hold in general yet the  determination of the Lord Talbot on the particular circumstance of the case  above report appear to have be find on great reason and justice and so the  practice have continue vide Moodamay v Morton bro c c Fenton v Hugh Ves S  Dummer v the corporation of Chippenham Ves Le texier v margravine of anspach  Ves Gibbons v the Waterloo bridge company price