LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 223

if he fails to do so, the Court can grant no relief, but must order the
bill to be dismissed. (f)

There is a variety of cases at common law as well as in equity, in which a
plaintiff may obtain relief against some one or more of the defendants,
although he may totally fail agamst all the others; but where one of
two or more defendants makes a defence which so effectually goes to
the whole as to show, that the plaintiff had no cause of suit, nor any
foundation for a legal complaint, he can have no relief even against the
defendant as to whom the bill had been taken pro confesso. (g)

In general, the answer of one defendant cannot be evidence a gainst another;
the exceptions to this rule.

In what cases a complainant or co-defendant may be examined as a witness
in the case.

The answer of the wife obligatory upon her. (h)

The policy of the Statute of Limitations, its nature, in what way, and how
far applied in equity, (i)

Where the Statute of Limitations is relied upon by one in bar of a contract
by which lie, with others, is charged to have been bound, it cannot be
taken out of the statute by any acknowledgment which would not be
equivalent to a renewment of such contract by all. (k)

More precision is required in a plea than in a bill.

A plea of the Act of Limitations of three years is not applicable to an equit-
able lien, which can only be barred by a lapse of twenty years. (l)

L.. in May, 1807, conveyed certain land to H. in fee by a deed which ac-
knowledged the receipt of $5 as the consideration. Afterwards H. gave
to L. a paper in which he acknowledged the receipt of the land, " which
is to be accounted for by me, H."' There was evidence that H. admitted,
in his life-time, the purchase of the land, for which he was to pay $13 1/3
per acre, and that the purchase money was never paid. H. remained in
possession during his life-time, and dying intestate the land descended
to his heirs. The representatives of L., after his death, filed the bill in
this case presenting the alternative of a conveyance in trust, or an abso-
lute sale with an incidental equitable lien. Held, that the plaintiffs had
established their claim, that the matters pleaded in avoidance by one of
the defendants were not proved; that the Statute of Limitations of three
years pleaded by another defendant was not applicable; and that, upon

(f) See Estep v. Watkins. post, 489: Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland, 134.

(g) The reliance of one defendant in his answer or plea upon the Statute
of Limitations will not enure to the benefit of another defendant who has
not so relied. Simms v. Lloyd, 58 Md. 480.

(h) Cited in Kerchner v. Kempton, 47 Md. 590. where it was held that as a
general rule, when husband and wife are sued jointly in equity, the wife
answers with her husband, although under special circumstances she may
put in a separate answer, but she is presumed to be so far under the domin-
ion of her husband that she is not bound by her answer made jointly with
him.

(i) See Hepburn's Case, 3 Bland, 110; Chew v. Farmers Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 231.

(k) But see McCormick v. Gibson, 3 G. & J. 12: Dixon v. Dixon, 1 Md. Ch.
271; Semmes v. Lloyd, 58 Md. 480.

(I) Affirmed in Railroad v. Trimble, 51 Md, 110; Moreton v. Harrison, post,
500; Clarke v. Southwick, 1 Curtis, (C. C.) 304.