CR OSS-B I L L. One which is brought by a defendant in a suit against a plaintiff in or against other defendants in the same suit, or against both, touching the matters in ques tion in the original bill. Story, Eq. Pl. § 389; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 80. It is brought either to obtain a discovery of facts, in aid of the defence to the original bill, or to obtain full and complete relief as to the matters charg ed in the original bill; Ayers v. Carver, 17 How. (U. S.) 595, 15 L. Ed. 179.
It is considered as a defence to the origi nal bill, and is treated as a dependency up on the original suit ; 1 Eden, Inj. 190; 3 Atk. 312; 19 E. L. & Eq. 325; Cockrell v. Warner, 14 Ark. 346; McDougald v. Dougherty, 14 Ga. 674; Slason v. Wright, 14 Vt. 208; Nel son v. Dunn, 15 Ala. 501; Kidder v. Barr, 35 N. H. 251. It is usually brought either to obtain a necessary discovery, as, for exam ple, where the plaintiff's answer under oath is desired; 3 Swanst. 474; 3 Y. & C. 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 dismisssil from court, which would not prevent subsequent suits; 1 Ves. 284; 2 Sch. & L. 9, 144; Speer v. Whitfield, 10 N. J. Eq. 107; Jones v. Smith, 14 Ill. 229; Bullock v. Brown, 20 Ga. 472; or where the defendants have conflict ing interests ; Pattison v. Hull, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 747; Armstrong v. Pratt, 2 Wis. 299; but may not introduce new parties; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. (U. S.) 130, 15 L. Ed. 158; unless affirmative relief is demanded and justice so requires; Brooks v. Applegate, 37 W. Va. 376, 16 S. E. 585. New parties cannot be brought in by a cross-bill; if the I defendant's interest requires their presence, he should object for non-joinder and compel plaintiff to amend; Patton v. Marshall, 173
Fed. 350, 97 C. C. A. 610, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 127. It is also used for the same purpose as a plea puis darrein continuance at law; 2 Ball & B. 140; 2 Atk. 177, 553; Baker v. Whiting, 1 Sto. 218, Fed. Cas. No. 786. It should state the original bill, and the proceedings thereon, and the rights of the Party exhibiting the bill which are neces sary to be made the subject V a cross-liti gation, on the grounds on which he resists the claims of the plaintiff in the original bill, if that is the object of the new bill ; Mitt. Eq. PL 81; and it should not introduce new and distinct matters; Gallatian v. Cun ningham, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 361.
It should be brought before publication ; Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. CU. (N. Y.) 62; Josey v. Rogers, 13 Ga. 478; and not after, —to avoid perjury; Field v. Schieffelin, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 250; Nelson 103.
In England it need not be brought before the same court; Mitf. Eq. P1. 81. For the rule in the United States, see Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 446, 6 L. Ed. 516; Story, Eq. Pl. § 401; Dan. Ch. P1. & Pr. 1549.
The granting or refusing permission to file a cross-bill is largely in the discretion of the court; Huff v. Bidwell, 151 Fed. 563, 81 C. C. A. 43.
Under the Equity Rules of Supreme Court of United States (Feb. 1, 1913), matter prop er for a cross-bill may be set up in the an swer, with the same effect. Rule 30 (33 ,Sup. Ct. xxvi).