222 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND.

If the plaintiff, after filing his bill, discover that one of the defendants is
not a non-resident as alleged therein, he may amend his bill so as to
pray process of subpoena against Mm.

In a suit concerning lands, if the Statute of Frauds be not specially relied
on, or the whole contract be not expressly denied in pleading, the de-
fendant is held to have waived the statute and cannot be permitted to
take advantage of it afterwards, or at the final hearing, (a)

Verbal proof may be received to corroborate and supply omissions in a
written contract, or to contradict the usual receipt endorsed on a con-
veyance, which is considered as evidence of the lowest order. (b)

The plaintiff can only obtain relief upon the strength of his own title as it
existed at the time of instituting his suit, and not on the weakness of
the title of his adversary, or the imbecility of his defence.

In general, if the facts stated in the bill are not in substance sufficient to
entitle the complainant to the reliet prayed, he cannot resort to the
answer of the defendant, the proof taken in the case, or any extraneous
matter to supply the defect, (c;

After the plaintiff has set forth the facts showing his case to be properly
within the cognizance of equity, he may proceed to specify the kind of
relief to which he thinks himself entitled.

If he specifies the relief for which he asks, and prays for none other, either
generally or specially, and the nature of his case is such that he cannot
obtain relief of that kind, then he cannot be relieved at all, unless he
amends the prayer of his bill.

But if the bill prays generally for such relief as is suited to the nature of
the case, then, under such general prayer, the Court may, regardless of,
or without any, special prayer, grant any relief which may be allowed
by law in conformity 'with the nature of the case, (d)

The plaintiff may present his case in the alternative; provided the alterna-
tives are both of them such as are cognizable by a Court of equity; and
are not so framed as to allow the plaintiff to elude any rule of Court, (e)

If it appear upon the face of the bill that the case is not one properly within
the cognizance of a Court of equity, the defendant should demur; yet

(a) See Moale v. Buchanan, 11 G. & J. 314. note; Small v. Owings, 1 Md. Ch.
368; Artz v. Grove, 31 Md. 456; Odgen v. Ogden, post, 384.

(b) Approved in Taggart v. Stansbury, 2 McLean, 546. See O'Neale v.
Lodge, 3 H. & McH. 433, note; Wolfe v. Hauver, 1 Gill, 84, note.

(c) Approved in Kunkel v. Markell, 26 Md. 409. See also Townshend v.
Duncan, 2 Bland, 45.

(d) The relief to be given under the general prayer in a bill, must be
agreeable to the case made by the bill, and not different from, or inconsistent
with it. Chamlers v. Chambers, 6 H. & J. 29. Equity Rule, 15, provides that
the prayer for relief shall specify particularly the relief desired, and shall
also contain the prayer for general relief. "Mr. Dobbins, a counsel formerly
in this Court, used to say that praying general relief was the next best
prayer to the Lord's prayer." Lord Hardwicke in Dormer v. Fortescue. 3
Atk. 132.

(e) Approved in Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 763, where it is said to be

"a well-settled rule that the complainant, if not certain as to the specific
relief to which he is entitled, may frame his prayer in the alternative, so
that if one kind of relief is denied another may he granted; the relief, of

each kind, being consistent with the case made by the bill."