CROSS - BILL. In Equity Practice. One which is brought by a defendant in a suit against a plaintiff in or against other defend ants in the same suit, or against both, touching the matters in question in the original bill, Story, Eq. Plead. 389 ; Mitford, Chanc. Plead. Jerem. ed. 80.
2. It is considered as a defence to the ori ginal bill, and is treated as a dependency upon the original suit. 1 Eden, Inj. 190 ; 3 Atk. Ch. 312; 19 Eng. L. & Eq. 325 ; 14 Ark. 346; 14 Ga: 674 ; 14 Vt. 208 ; 24 id. 181; 15 Ala. 501. It is usually brought either to obtain a necessary discovery, as, for example, where the plaintiff's answer under oath is desired, 3 Swanst. Ch. 474; 3 Younge & C. Ch. 594.; 2 Cox, Ch. 109 ; or to obtain full relief for all parties, since the defendant in a bill could originally only pray for a dismissal from court, as to prevent subsequent suits, 1 Yes. Ch. 284 ; 7 id. 222 ;, 2 Schoales & L. Ch. Ir. 9, 11, n., 144, n. (z) ; 2 Stockt. Ch. N. J. 107; 14 Ill. 229; 20 Ga. 473; Story, Eq. Plead. 390, n. ; or where the defendants have conflict ing interests, 9 Cow. N. Y. 747 ; 1 Sandf. Ch. N. Y. 108 ; 2 Wisc. 299, but may not introduce new parties. 17 How. 130. It is also used for the same purpose as a plea pvis darrein continuance at law. Cooper, Eq. Plead. 86 ; 2 Ball & B. Ch. Ir. 140; 2 Atk. Oh, 177, 553; 1 Stor. C. C. 218.
3. It should state the original bill, and the proceedings thereon, and the rights of the party exhibiting the bill which are necessary to be made the subject of a cross-litigation, or the grounds on which he resists the claims of the plaintiff in the original bill, if that is the object of the new bill, Mitford, Chanc. Plead. Jerem. id. 81; and it should not intro duce new and distinct matters. 8 Cow. N. Y. 361.
It should be brought before I Johns. Ch. N. Y. 62 ; 13 Ga. 478, and not after, —to avoid perjury. 7 Johns. Ch. N. Y. 250 ; Nelson, Ch. 103.
In England it need not be brought before the same court. Mitford, Chanc. Plead. Jerem. ed. 81 et seq. For the rule in the United States, see 11 Wheat. 446; Story, Eq. Plead. 401.
In Prac tice. The examination of a witness by the party opposed to the party who called him, and who examined or was entitled to examine him in chief.
2. In England and some of the states of the United States, when a competent witness is called and sworn, the other party is ordi narily entitled to cross-examine him though he be not examined in chief, 2 Stark.314, 472; 1 Esp. 357 ; 4 id. 67 ; 1 Armstr. M. & 0. Ir. 204; 17 Pick. Mass. 490; 1 Cush. Mass. 189; 7 Cow. N. Y. 238 ; 2 Wend. N. Y. 166, 483 ;
23 Ga. 154 ; 32 Miss. 405 ; see 3 Carr. & P. 16 ; 7 id. 64 ; 1 Crompt. M. & R. Exch. 94 2 Mood. & R. 273 ; 23 Ga. 154 ; but it is held in other states and in the federal courts that the cross-examination is confined to facts and circumstances connected with matters stated in the direct examination. 3 Wash. C. C.580; 14 Pet. 448; 16 Serg. & R. Penn. 77; 6 Watts & S. Penn. 75 ; 2 Dutch. N. J. 463 • 5 Cal.
450 ; 4 Iowa, 477; 4 Mich. 67. But see 12 La. Ann. 826 ; 2 Pat. & H. Va. 616.
3. Inquiry may be made in regard to col lateral facts in the discretion of the judge, 7 Carr. & P. 389 ; 5 Wend. N. Y. 305 ; not merely for the purpose of contradicting the witness by other evidence. 1 Starkie, Ev. 164 ; 7 East, 108 ; 2 Lew. Cr. Cas. 154, 156 ; 7 Carr. & P. 789 ; 2 Campb. 637 ; 16 Pick. Mass. 157 ; 8 Me. 42 ; 2 Gall. C. C. 51. And see 3 Carr. & P. 75; 1 Exch. 91 ; 7 Clark & F. Hon. L. 122 ; 16 Pick. Mass. 157 ; 4 Den. N. Y. 502 ; 7 Wend. N. Y. 57 ; 2 Ired. No. C. 346 ; 14 Pet. 461.
As to whether the witness may be called subsequently to his examination in chief and cross-examined, see 1 Greenleaf, Ev. 447 ; 1 Starkie, Ev. 164 ; 16 Serg. & R. Penn. 77; 17 Pick. Mass. 498.
A written paper identified by the witness as having been written by him may be intro duced in the course of a cross-examination as a part of the evidence of the party pro ducing it, if necessary for the purposes of the cross-examination. 16 Jur. 103 ; 8 Carr. & P. 369 ; 2 Brod. & B. 289.
4. A cross-examination as to matters not admissible in evidence entitles the party pro clueing the witness to re-examine him as to those matters. 3 Ad. & E. 554 ; 17 Tex. 417.
Leading questions may be put in cross examination. 1 Starkie, Ev. 96; 1 Phillipps, Ev. 210 ; 6 Watts & S. Penn. 75. For some suggestions as to the propriety of cross-ex amination in various cases and the most ex pedient manner of conducting it, see 2 Pothier, Ohl. Evans ed. 233 ; 1 Starkie, Ev. 160, 161 ; Archbold, Crim. Plead. 111.
Where a par ticular estate is conveyed to several persons in common, and upon the termination of the interest of either of them his share is to re main over to the rest, and the reversioner or remainder man is not to take till the termi nation of all the estates, the parties take as tenants in common with cross-remainders be tween them. 4 Cruise, Dig. 249 ; 1 Hilliard, Real Prop. 650. It is not an essential quality of cross-remainders that the original estates should be held in common. 1 Prest. Est. 94 ; 2 Wash. Real Prop. Index.