242 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND.

missed. The defence made and sustained going to a part only of
the subject claimed, it appeared, that the plaintiffs had a valid
cause of suit, and were therefore relieved. Sprigg v. Weems, 2 H.
& McH. 266. So, in general, if a man brings an action for two
things, for the recovery of both of which the action will lie, but
on the trial fails to sustain his claim to one of them; * yet
257 he may have judgment for the other, his right to which he
establishes, Godfrey's Case, 11 Co. 45; Gregory v. Molesworth, 3
Atk. 627. Or suppose, that as a cause of suit the plaintiff alleges,
that he has a right to a hundred acres of land which has been
withheld from him: there, as the subject in controversy is divisi-
ble in its nature, the defendant may take defence for onh a part,
or he may defend for the whole; but if the plaintiff establishes a
title which covers a less number of acres, he may be relieved;
because so far he shews, that he has a sufficient cause of action.
Or suppose the suit to have been brought against two or more
defendants, each of whom makes a separate defence, and the de-
fence of one, applicable to himself alone, shews, that he ought
not to be charged; and the others fail in their defence; the plain-
tiff' may have his entire relief against them, although the bill
must be dismissed as to the one who had successfully defended
only so far a,s he himself was charged: 2 Will. Extra, 1218; because
no defence going to the whole, and showing, that the plaintiff' had
no cause of action having been established, he may be relieved as
against all the other defendants who had either made no defence,
or failed to establish either any such general defence as went to
the whole, and to show that the plaintiff had no cause of suit
whatever: or any such particular defence as went to show, that
although there might be such a cause of action against others, yet
he, that defendant, could not be charged by it.

In these and in all similair cases, where the cause of action is
made up of several distinct items; or in so far as the subject of it
is divisible in its nature; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1082; or
where it bears upon the several defendants in a disjunctive, sepa-
rate, or limited manner, the relief granted may be accordingly for
the whole or for a part only of that which is the subject of the
cause of suit; or it may be granted against all the defendants, or
against some or one of them only, or against each pro rater, or in
different proportions. Mason v. Peter, 1 Mun. 437. But in all
cases, in equity as well as at law, the relief is, and can only be
granted, because of its having been admitted or established, that
there is and was, when the suit was instituted, a valid and exist-
ing cause of action, of which the Court might take cognizance,
and which by no defence, going to the whole, had been shewn by
all, or any one of the defendants to have been entirely barred,
satisfied or extinguished in any way whatever. These are gene-