258 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.—1 BLAND.

as against him who makes such a defence; because a plaintiff' can
only obtain relief upon the strength of his own title, and by shew-
ing, that it is good against all the world as well as against each
one of the then defendants; and also, because every Court of jus-
tice must act consistently, and cannot be allowed to contradict
itself, by saying, in the same decree, in the same case, that the
plaintiff' has no cause of suit whatever: and also, that he has a
just and well founded cause of complaint. Gregory v. Molesworth,
3 Atk: 626.

It may therefore be regarded as an inflexible general rule, which
admits of few, if any exceptions, that according to any view
which can be taken of the case, or upon any defence made against
it, if it appears, upon the whole record, that the plaintiff's title,
or cause of suit, is a mere nullity, or has been barred, satisfied, or
extinguished in any way whatever, he can have no relief.

There are, however, some cases which present an apparent ex-
ception to this general rule. A Court of equity may, and always
does, shape its decree according to the nature of the case, so as
to place the burthen as nearly as may be where it ought to rest.
Where there are many defendants, and some or one of them only
is found liable to the plaintiff's cause of suit, the bill may be dis-
missed as to the others; or a defendant who has been made so
merely because of his being the depository of the fund, for the
purpose of having it detained in his hands by injunction, may, by
the dissolution of the injunction, cease to be a necessary party,
even before the case has been brought to a final hearing; 2 Mad.
Chan. 191; or if the plaintiff has a separate cause of suit against
each, then each of them may be charged according to their respec-
tive liabilities; or where all the defendants are alike bound for the
whole to the plaintiff, but some of them stand only as sureties
for the other, there the Court may, by a decree over, provide for
the relief of the sureties against their principal, in case they
should satisfy the claim, or direct a contribution, in case any one
surety should pay more than his proportion. These instances are
* common, and the course of the Court, in that respect, is
276 well settled. The Court is involved in no contradiction or
inconsistency by any such decree; as a defendant in equity can
only be charged to the extent of his liability, so the Court's de-
cree against him must be modified accordingly. But as no one
can be permitted impertinently to interfere with a matter by which
he is not proposed to be, or obviously cannot be charged, a defend-
ant cannot be allowed to direct any sort of defence against all or
any distinct portion of the plaintiff's cause of suit in which his
interests are not implicated, or by which he can be subjected to no
kind of liability. Where, however, a defendant's liability is such,
as principal or otherwise, that he must be charged by a decree
which affirms the validity of the alleged cause of suit, then he