There is no legal question of interest' in this case, except those which respect the propriety of reading Andrew Waggener’s deposition. He is one-of two sureties in a bond to Dyer, the appellee, and if Dyer succeeds in the cause, the debt will be thereby liquidated and discharged. To remove this objection,. Dyer has executed to him a covenant not to sue him,, which he produced at the taking of his deposition. Two questions are now made: 1. Can the covenant-be read without proof by the subscribing witness ? This objection, if valid, comes too late. It ought to-have been made when the paper was introduced, that the subscribing witness might be called. This was-not done. The paper was admitted, the counsel for the defendants only objecting to its being copied, meaning, I suppose, that the original must be filed. Independent of this, it seems to me that as Dyer calls for the covenant, and avails himself of it to rehabilitate his witness, the proof of the subscribing witness-was not necessary. Mandeville v. Perry, 6 Call, 78. He could never afterwards be permitted to deny it, and if so, the witness would have the full- benefit of its protection. 2. Did this covenant exonerate the witness ? I think it did. It did not, it is true, discharge the co-surety, because a covenant not to sue one does not exonerate both. Ward v. Johnson, 6 Munf., 9; Dean v. Newhall, 8 T. R., 168; Wrights adm’r v. Stockton, 5 Leigh, 153. But the covenant operated to protect Andrew Waggener forever from Dyer’s claim. It is contended, however, that he would, be subject to the co-surety’s demand for contribution.
Waggener was therefore a good witness, and reading his testimony, the merits are most clearly with the appellee. The objection as to the title being pretensed cannot prevail. The cases of Allen, &c., v. Smith, 1 Leigh, 231, and Ruffners v. Lewis’s ex’ors et al., 7 Leigh, 720, promulgate, I think, the true doctrine on this subject, on the authority of the opinions of learned English chancellors there cited. The present case is fully within the influence of them.
On the whole, I think there is no error in the decree to the prejudice of the appellant, and that it should be affirmed with costs.
Per curiam, decree arrirmed.