166 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

Joint, or several, as may be required to meet the justice of the
controversy, as disclosed by the evidence.

Upon this objection, then, I am clearly of opinion, that even
if it could have been successfully urged, it is too late now,
when the case is ready for decision upon the merits.

The next objection of the defendants to the passing of a de-
cree upon this bill, is, that the relief brought by it, is improp-
erly prayed, there being no special prayer. The prayer is, that
the plaintiffs may have such relief as equity may require, and
this, it ie said, is insufficient, standing by itself, unaccompanied
by any special prayer.

The object of all pleading is, to give to parties notice of the
ground of claim, and defence, or upon which demands are as-
serted or resisted, and when this is done, the object of the rules
of pleading is attained. Now, there can be no doubt that the
defendants in this case had notice by the bill, of the relief which
was sought against them. They know that the object of the
complainants was to make them pay this legacy; and they defend
themselves against the demand, by stating, in their answer, that
it had been wholly or partially paid.

They cannot, therefore, complain that they have been taken by
surprise, when the relief, sought under the general prayer of
this bill in the identical relief against which the answer sets up
the defence.

Upon principle, therefore, it would seem very obvious, that
after having presented this issue, and gone to trial upon it, up-
on the evidence, the defendants should not now be permitted
to say that the bill is defective in this respect.

But, independently of principle, it seems very clear upon au-
thority, that the objection cannot be sustained. The only lim-
itation upon the power of the court to grant relief under the
the general prayer is, that it must be agreeable to the case made
by the bill, and not different from, or inconsistent with it. Cham-
bers vs. Chalmers, 6 H. & J., 29.

In Bentley vs. Cowman, 6 G. & J., 152, the Court of Ap-
peals say, that the extent and character of the relief which may
be granted under the general prayer, depends upon the facts