Is it improper to make a defendant solely to obtain discovery of the insolvent?

In Kerr v. Read (1875), 22 Gr. 529, the court states it is improper to make a person a defendant solely to obtain discovery of him. Proudfoot V.C. states at pp. 539-40: “No relief is sought against the insolvent in his individual capacity. The plaintiff only asks a discovery to enable him to frame his case for establishing the facts as against the other defendants. “For the purpose of this demurrer our insolvent law is considered by both parties to have the same effect as the bankruptcy laws in England. “To permit an insolvent to be made a party to a suit for any purpose, after the law has divested him of all interest in the property, violates one of the elementary rules of equity pleading, that no one is a proper party who has no interest in the property in question. An exception has been made from this rule, if there is any charge of fraud connected with the transaction in which the agent, or steward, or attorney, or solicitor, or arbitrator (the persons with regard to whom this point can arise), participate, and it is so charged in the bill, then he may properly be made a party. For if no other decree can be made against him, he might be decreed to pay the costs of the suit if his principal should be so insolvent.”