LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND. 257

* not take cognizance, because of its being improper to
break in upon the regular course of legal proceedings more 274
than is necessary for the purposes of justice, it will prevent a
party from taking an unequitable advantage of the Statute of Limi-
tations, or any lapse of time at law. Bond v. Hopkins, 1 Sch. &
Lefr. 430.

Defences resting upon the Statute of Limitations at law, or upon
the same lapse of time in analogous cases in equity, seem to have
been treated with a rather unsteady hand. They have been some-
times regarded as deserving much favor, while at other times they
have been scowled upon as subterfuges, resorted to for the purpose
of escaping from the real merits and justice of the case; and par-
ticularly so, where, as in this instance, such a defence has been
relied on by only one of a plurality of defendants as a total bar to
the whole cause of suit. But there cannot be, in reality, any such
pliability in the general rules of law as will allow of their being
bent and twisted in one way or other at the pleasure of any Court
of justice by whom they may be administered.

Here, however, it is insisted by this plea, that neither this de-
fendant Richard Henderson, nor John Henderson deceased, did
at any time within three years, before the exhibition of this bill
of complaint, promise or agree to pay, or satisfy the plaintiffs or
James M. Lingan, any sum of money on account of the transac-
tion in the bill of complaint mentioned. From which it would
seem, that, although it is insisted, the whole cause of suit has been
barred by the Statute of Limitations, yet, as this defendant Rich-
ard Henderson has denied, that he himself made any promise, his
plea does thereby tacitly concede, that an acknowledgment of
this cause of suit, made by himself or any other of his co-defend-
ants, would take the case out of the Statute; upon the ground,
that if such a plea from any one defendant would be a bar to the
whole, then an acknowledgment by any one would revive the
whole. And if so, then, apart from the defences of English and
wife, as there is here a default and tacit admission of the whole
by two others of these defendants, this plea of the defendant
Richard Heuderson can be of no avail to himself, or to any of his
co-defendants. Johnson v. Beardslee, 15 John. Rep, 3.

If this position be tenable, then it is evident, that as in all
cases, where the Statute of Limitations is not expressly relied on,
it is considered as waived, it can in no case be received as a valid
defence, where there is a plurality of defendants; unless each one,

* or all of them together, expressly rely upon it. But, as 275
has been shown, it is a well settled rule, in equity as well
as at law, that any defence coming from any one of a plurality of
defendants, which goes to the whole, and shows, that the plaintiif
has no cause of suit, effectually precludes the Court from giving
relief in any way whatever against any other defendant, as well
17 1 B.