
    Macey and Sullinger vs. Brooks.
    
      November 7.
    To a bill by one of leve-ral co-obligors t° relieved on the pound that the bond 0⅛« "Tb’ i¡g0„ ought to be parties,
   OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Bgyxe.

-This ⅛ a writ of error to a decree injoining a judgment at law, upon the ground that the judgment was obtained upon m obligation given for an usurious consideration. The bill was filed by only one of two co-obligors, and the other is not made a party, either complainant or defendant, nor any reason suggested why he was not. The decree ⅛ on this ground therefore clearly erroneous: for if oile co-obligor may in such a case file a bill, ano,ther might, and suits he thus multiplied equally contrary to the maxims of sound policy and to the principles which govern a court of equity.

The decree reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for new proceedings not inconsistent with the foregoing opinion.  