LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 245

whatever. Berry v. Usher, 11 Ves. 87; Simmons v. Gutteridge,
13 Fes. 264; 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 8, s. 20. If there be several
executors they may plead different pleas; each of them may put
in, for himself, none other than the plea of plene administrarit;
and as such a defence does not controvert the existence of the
cause of action, but merely denies a sufficiency of assets where-
with to satisfy it; if the one of such pleas should be found for and
the other against him who pleads it, yet the plaintiff may have
relief against that one executor, although his suit must be dis-
missed as against the other. 2 Will. Ex'rs, 1218. But if, in addi-
tion to such a plea, one of the executors should plead a release, or
rest his defence upon any matter going to the whole cause of ac-
tion, and it should be found for him. the plaintiff must be barred,
and can have no relief whatever; although the other executor had
even acknowledged the action, or made default; because it would
appear upon the whole record, that the plaintiff had in fact no
cause of action. Elwell v. Quash. 1 Stra. 20; 3 P.ac. Abr\ 33; 2
Will. Ex'rs, 1193.

The wife, executrix to her husband, married a second husband.
A bill is exhibited against them to discover the trust; the hus-
band and wife disagree in the matter, and put in severally their
answers; the husband denied the trust, but the wife confessed it.
The cause proceeded to hearing, and the plaintiff proved the
trust only by one witness which the plaintiff insisted on with the
wife's confession, to be sufficient; the matter being but in that
wherein she was concerned as executrix. But the bill was dis-
missed, quia the wife's answer shall not bind the husband. An-
onymous, 2 Ca. Cha. 39. But upon a bill brought against husband
and wife for lands held by them in her right, the husband having
made default, the wife got an order to answer separately; and
thereupon answered, setting forth a title to herself * of the
inheritance. It was held, that there could be no decree
against her; but the bill was taken pro confesso against the hus-
band only, and he was ordered to account for all the profits of the
land received since the coverture, and the profits which should be
received during the coverture, &c. Ward v. Meath, 2 Ca. Cha.
173.

Whence it appears, that in equity as at law. where the defence
made by anyone defendant extends only so far as to cover nothing
more than the interest of him by whom it is made, the plaintiff
may yet have relief, if he establishes his claim against the other
defendants; but that where the defence made by one defendant
goes to the whole cause of complaint, and the plaintiff fails to
establish his case in opposition to such defence, he cannot be re-
lieved in any way whatever, although his claim should be con-
fessed by the other defendants.