236 LINGAN v. HENDERSO1C.

LINGAN v. HENDERSON.

T&e plaintiff by petition, stating on oath the circumstances, may, before the coming
in of the answer, obtain a commission to take the testimony de bene esse of an
aged and infirm witness.

An. order of publication, warning an absent defendant to appear, as the substitute
for a subpoena, is granted as of course; because a plaintiff so proceeds at his peril:
and it must go against a wife as well as her husband, or she will not be bound*

If the statute of frauds be not specially relied upon, and the whole contract be
mot expressly denied in pleading, the party can have no advantage of the statute,
by objecting to the proofs, or in any other way.

Verbal proof may be received to corroborate and supply omissions in a written
contract, or to contradict the usual receipt endorsed on a conveyance, which is
considered as evidence of the lowest order.

The plaintiff's case must be fully shown by his bill; its defects cannot be sup-
plied from the other proceedings; because it is upon the case so stated alone,
that the court can grant relief.

The special prayer must be for such relief as can be given; but under the general
prayer, that relief will be given which is best suited to the case, though not orally
asked for.

The plaintiff may present his case in the alternative; provided the alternatives are
both of them such as are cognizable by a court of equity; and are not so framed
as to allow the plaintiff to elude any rule of court.

There is a variety of cases at common law as well as in equity, in which a plaintiff
may obtain relief against some one or more of the defendants, although he may
totally fail against all the others; but where one of two or more defendants makes
a defence which so effectually goes to the whole as to show, that the plaintiff' had
no cause of Suit, nor any foundation for a legal complaint, he can have no relief
even against the defendant as to whom the bill had been taken pro confesso.

In general, the answer of one defendant cannot be evidence against another; the
exceptions to this rule.

fn what cases a complainant or co-defendant may be examined as a witness in the case.

The answer of the wife obligatory upon her.

The policy of the statute of limitations, its nature, in what way, and how far
applied in equity.

Where the statute of limitations is relied upon by one in bar of a contract by which
lie, with others, is charged to have been bound, it cannot be taken out of the sta-
tute by any acknowledgment which would not be equivalent to a renewment of
such contract by all.

More precision is required in a plea than in a bill.

A plea of the act of limitations of three years is not applicable to an equitable
Ken, which can only be barred by a lapse of twenty years.

This bill was filed on the 29th of November, 1821, by Janet
Lingan, William B. Randolph and Sarah his wife, George Lingan,
and Elias B. Caldwell and Anne his wife, against Richard Hen-
derson, Sarah Henderson, Janet L. Henderson, and David English
and Lydia his wife.

The bill states, that James M. Lingan, in May, 1807, by deed,
duly recorded, conveyed to John Henderson, his brother-in-law, a