Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/875

 mCKS V. JENNINGS. 861 �hîs defence to the case made by the bill, attempts, by calling his answer an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, to make the complainant Hicks, in his capacity of administrator of the estate of Henry Irby, a party to the original bill, and asks a decree against him, as sach administrator, for the $5,000 paid upon the note and mortgage on which the suit is based, mth interest. An answer in the nature of a cross- bill is authorized by the Code of Georgia, but no such plead- ing is reeognized by the equity practice of the United States courts. If the defendant had filed a formai cross-bill he could only make either the complainants or other defendants, if any, or both, parties defendant to his cross-bill. He cannot introduce a new party and ask relief against him. By ask-: ing relief against Hicks, as administrator of Irby, the defend- ant seeks to bring into the litigation a new party, and to obtain a decree against him' alone. This is not permissible. The other parties to the case are not to be involved by the filing of a cross-bill in a controversy between one of the defendants and a etranger to the original litigation, in which they have no interest and to which they are not necessary or proper parties. �There can, therefore, be no decree in favor of the defend- ant against Henry Irby 's administrator, as prayed for in the answer. Therô will be a decree dismissing the bill of com- plainants at their costs, and dismissing the claim of the de- fendant set up in his answer in the nature of a cross-bill, without prejudice to a suit upon the same by defendant against Henry Irby's administrator. ����