LINGAN v. HENDERSON. 257

yet he may have judgment for the other, his right to which he
establishes.(v} Or suppose, that as a cause of suit the plaintiff
alleges, that he has a right to a hundred acres of land which has
been withheld from him; there, as the subject in controversy is
divisible in its nature, the defendant may take defence for only a
part, or he may defend for the whole; but if the plaintiff estab-
lishes a title which covers a less number of acres, he may be
relieved; because so far he shews, that he has a sufficient cause
of action. Or suppose the suit to have been brought against two
or more defendants, each of whom makes a separate defence, and
the defence of one, applicable to himself alone, shews, that he
ought not to be charged; and the others fail in their defence; the
plaintiff may have his entire relief against them, although the bill
must be dismissed as to the one who had successfully defended
only so far as he himself was charged ;(w) because no defence
going to the whole, and showing, that the plaintiff had no cause
of action having been established, he may be relieved as against
all the other defendants who had either made no defence, or failed
to establish either any such general defence as went to the whole,
and to show that the plaintiff had no cause of suit whatever; or
any such particular defence as went to show, that although there
might be such a cause of action against others, yet he, that
defendant, could not be charged by it.

In these and in all similar cases, where the cause of action is
made up of several distinct items; or in so far as the subject of it
is divisible in its nature ;(x) or where it bears upon the several
defendants in a disjunctive, separate, or limited manner, the relief
granted may be accordingly for the whole or for a part only of that
which is the subject of the cause of suit; or it may be granted
against all the defendants, or against some or one of them only, or
against each pro rata, or in different proportions.(y) But in all
cases, in equity as well as at law, the relief is, and can only be
granted, because of its having been admitted or established, that
there is and was, when the suit was instituted, a valid and existing
cause of action, of which the court might take cognizance, and
which by no defence, going to the whole, had been shewn by aU,
or any one of the defendants to have been entirely barred, satisfied
or extinguished in any way whatever. These are general well

(v) Godfrey's Case, 11 Co. 45; Gregory v, Molesworth, a Atk, 627,—(w)2 Will.
Ex'rs. 1213.—(x) Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1032.—(y) Mason v. Peter. 1 Mun 437

33