214 CONTEE v. DAWSON.—2 BLAND.

urged, that it has not been shewn, that Eleanor Dawson has re-
ceived her share of the estates referred to in the codicil.

But I am of opinion, that it was the intention and meaning of
this testatrix by that codicil merely to declare, that Eleanor Daw-
son should not be hindered, obstructed, or impeded in obtaining
the benefit of the estates referred to, by any positive or active in-
terference of the legatee Margaret II. Clerklee; and not that Mar-
garet E. Clerklee should actually aid and assist Eleanor Dawson
in obtaining her rights, and see that she received her full share of
those estates. And consequently, that it lays upon the defend-
ant Eleanor Dawson to prove, that her right has, in fact, been
contested; and that she has been hindered and prevented by Mar-
garet E. Clerklee from obtaining her fall share of the estates
spoken of in the codicil. So far, however, from there being any
proof of that kind, the testimony is full and conclusive, to the ex-
tent it goes, that she has met with no impediments whatever; but
on the * contrary, has had every assistance, that could be
292 given, or was necessary; and has, in fact, recovered her
full share of those estates wherever it appears she had required
or demanded it. There is then not the least foundation, in point
of fact, for this defence resting upon the conditional bequest over
to Eleanor Dawson.

The defendant Elizabeth Clerklee, having attained her full age,
is now in a situation to demand and receive that proportion of this
legacy which has vested in her. By her answer she avers, that
she has nothing to do with this bill as a defendant; and prays that
it may be dismissed, and siicb other benefit afforded her as may
seem meet. All persons having the same interest, should stand on
the same side in this suit; but if any one, identified in interest
with the plaintiff, refuses to appear as a plaintiff, he may be made
a defendant, by stating in the bill that he refused to concur as
plaintiff, or by stating the nature of his interest, as in this in-
stance. Calvert on Parties, 11. For it is well settled, that the
Court not only may, but must as a duty, decree between co-defend-
ants, where the matter comes fully before it, and a case is fully
made out between them; so that the whole controversy may
be finally and at once closed. Chamley v. Lord Dimsary, 2
Scho. & Left: 709, 718; Taliaferro v. Minor, 2 Call, 190; Har-
mood v. Oglander, 8 Ves. 123; Colegate D. Owings' Case, 1
Bland, 404. Therefore the defendant Eleanor Dawson will, in
addition to the shares of this legacy due to the plaintiff's, be
directed to pay this share now due to her co-defendant Elizabeth
Clerklee.

It now sufficiently appears, that of the six children of the late
Margaret E. Clerklee, four have been entitled, according to the
terms of the bequest, to take the whole of this legacy in case the
two, who are now infants, should die under age and before they