LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 237

5 Fes. 495; and even although it should be more bene-
ficial to him than that which he has specially prayed for; Durant
v. Durant, 1 Cox, 58; of which the defendant is held to have been
sufficiently notified, and is presumed to have been prepared to
meet. For it is in many cases as much upon a defendant to look
to what is prayed against him as to what is stated. Manaton v.
Molesworth, 1 Eden, 26; Roche v. Morgell, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 729; Polk
v. Clinton, 12 Fes. 65; Hiern v. Mill, 13 Ves. 119; Jones v. The
Parishes of Montgomery, &c. 3 Swan. 208; Wilkinson v. Beal, 4
Mad. 408; Mitf. Pl 38.

These plaintiffs have by their bill made to the Court three dis-
tinct prayers: first, that the administratrix of John Henderson be
compelled to pay the purchase money, with interest; secondly,
that the heirs of John Henderson reconvey the land; and thirdly,
that they, the plaintiff's, may have such relief as to the Court shall
seem meet and consistent with equity. The two first of these
prayers have been made to correspond with the alternatives of
their case; either that the contract between James M. Lingan and
John Henderson was to be considered as a sale, in which case the
plaintiff's ask for the payment of the purchase money, or that, if
it should be treated as a trust, then the heirs of Henderson should
be ordered to reconvey the land to the heirs of Lingan. But as
the peculiar nature of the case might suggest the propriety or
necessity of granting relief in some other than either of those two
specified modes, they have, in general terms, prayed for such re-
lief as may be deemed proper. Consequently the plaintiffs may
be relieved in one way or another, unless there should be found to
be something in their bill to prevent it; or unless the claim of
these plaintiff's should appear to have been in some way barred, or
should be found to be not sufficiently authenticated by proof.

This case had its origin in a contract between James M. Lingan
and John Hendersou. Contemplating it therefore as an agree-
ment between them alone, as now living, to be, as stated in the
bill; either a conveyance of a tract of land in trust for a particu-
lar purpose, and then to be reconveyed; or as an actual sale of so
much land to be paid for at a stipulated price, still it is one entire
* indivisible contract, utterly incapable of being broken up
into distinct parts. The subject of it, taken in either alter 252
native, may be divided. The land may be reconveyed in separate
parcels, and the purchase money may be satisfied in many small
payments; but, yet the one original contract covers all, and can
exist only as a whole. The parties themselves may alter, relin-
quish, or receive satisfaction for the whole or any part of it, at
their pleasure; but, to the Court, it is a sacred unalterable whole,
which must stand or fall together.

A plaintiff cannot be permitted to put his case in the alterna-
tive, so as to evade any of those settled rules which have been