238 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND.

established by the Court for the protection of its suitors from un-
reasonable vexation; as by giving to his bill such a disjunctive
frame and alternative prayers, as, that it may be treated either as
a bill of review, or as a bill of reviver and supplement, so as
thereby to elude the protective operation of those rules by which
a party is restrained from filing a bill of review at his pleasure.
Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 176. And as a plaintiff must state a
clear case of equitable jurisdiction, much less can he be permitted
to call on the Court to act upon a hypothetical bill praying relief,
either at law or in equity; since he must distinctly determine for
himself whether his case is at law or in equity. Edwards v. Ed-
wards, Jac. Rep. 335. But it ih not irregular to bring a bill in
which the case, taken in any way, being within the jurisdiction
of a Court of equity, is stated in the disjunctive or with two dif-
ferent aspects; so that if the plaintiff fails to sustain by his proof
the one alternative, he may, by authenticating the other, obtain
the relief he seeks. Cresset v. Kettleby, 1 Tern. 219; Bennett v.
Vade, 2 Atk: 325: Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 111. Here, however, the
alternative presented to the Court is that of a conveyance in trust:
or an absolute sale, with an incident equitable lien; so that,
whether the plaintiffs sustain by their proof the one alternative
or the other, they have, by their bill, presented a case which,
without invading any rule, comes entirely within the cognizance
of a Court of equity.

But the originally contracting parties were both of them dead
when this bill was filed. The plaintiff's are the legal representa-
tives of James M. Lingan, deceased; and the defendants legally
represent the late John Henderson. The rights, as well as the
liabilities, under this contract, have thus passed into other hands
and devolved * upon other persons. The plaintiffs derive
253 their right to the thing in controversy from James M. Lin
gan; they stand exactly in his place, and cau all of them together
claim nothing more than what might have been demanded by him.
Any one of them may assign, or release his or her own undivided
right, so far as it extends, without prejudice to the others; which
transfer would, however, only operate so as to substitute the assignee
for the assignor; and consequently this contract, as stated in the
bill, is as entire and as utterly indivisible, as these plaintiffs have
succeeded to it, as it was in the hands of James M. Lingan, the
originally contracting party.

Then, on the other hand, the liability to which John Henderson
was subject, by this contract, has devolved upon these defendants
as his legal representatives. Considering it as a conveyance in
trust, his administratrix is liable for the rents and profits, as for
so much personalty, gathered by her intestate from the real estate
which had been so conveyed: and his heirs are liable; because
that real estate itself has, by operation of law, been cast upon