468 MORETON v. HARRISON.—1 BLAND.

then * farther say, that the defendant did not promise or
496 assume to pay the debt at any time within twelve years
before the complainants filed their bill. Regarding these allega-
tions as two distinct pleas, they are, as pleaded, each of them, in-
formal and wholly insufficient. And, taking them as one plea, it
is multifarious and double. Duplicity is a vice in pleading, and
singleness is no less necessary in equity than at law. This plea
must, therefore, be overruled. Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 Bro. C.
C. 417; S. C. 2 Fes. & Bea. 153, note.

The object of this bill is to enforce an equitable lien by a vendor
against a vendee, and to have the land sold, in virtue thereof, for
the payment of the balance of the purchase money. Whether a

in the said bill of complaint mentioned, (which this defendant doth in no
sort admit,) the same did accrue or arise above twenty years before the
filing the complainant's bill of complaint; and above twenty years before
the serving this defendant with any process to appear to and answer the
same, during all which time the said Stephen Steward, and all those claim-
ing under him have constantly acquiesced under the said deed or convey-
ance alleged to have been made to him by the said Thomas Davis; that is to
say, from the time of making the same until the time of filing the com-
plainant's said bill; wherefore this defendant doth plead the Act of Parlia-
ment or Statute of Limitations made in the twenty-first year of King Jamee
the First: and also the length of time and acquiescence, and prays the benefit
of the same: all which matters this defendant doth aver and plead in bar of
the complainant's said bill, and of the complainant's pretended demands for
which he seeks to be relieved by the said bill.

And this defendant further saith, that he is advised by his counsel, that
there is good cause of demurrer to the said bill, and that there is no matter
or thing in the said bill contained good and sufficient in law to call this de-
fendant in question in this Honorable Court for the same: but that there is
good cause of demurrer thereto: and for cause of demurrer, this defendant
saith, that, by the complainant's own shewing, the said bill, (in case the
allegations therein contained were true, which this defendant does in no
sort admit.) contains not any matter of equity "whereon this Court can
ground any decree or give the complainant any relief or assistance as against
this defendant: wherefore and for divers other errors and imperfections in
the said bill appearing, this defendant doth demur in law thereunto; and
humbly demands the judgment of this Honorable Court, whether he shall
be compelled to put in any further or other answer to the said bill; and
humbly prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs in this behalf
most wrongfully sustained. THOMAS JENNINGS, for Deft.

ROGERS, C., 3d September, 1789.—Decreed, that the bill aforesaid of the
complainant be dismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed; and that the
said complainant pay to the said defendant his costs in this behalf expended.
Chancery Proceedings, Lib. 8. H. H. letter B, 722.

N. B.—Recollecting, as has been before explained, (H. K. Chasers Case,
ante, 217,) that a demurrer is overruled by a plea, it is obvious, that this
decree must have been founded upon the propriety of thus pleading two
pleas, and upon the validity of one or both of the pleas.