258 LINGAN v. HENDERSON,

established elementary principles by whi<Sh all courts of justice,
as well those of common law as of equity, are governed. They
are merely modifications of the one great fundamental rule, which
declares, that in so far, and no farther than there is a cause of com-
plaint can there be any foundation for relief.

This matter is thus explained and exemplified by Lord Coke:
" In a plea personal against divers defendants, says he, the one
defendant pleads in bar to parcel, or which extendeth only to him
that pleadeth it, and the other pleads a plea which goeth to the
whole, the plea that goeth to the whole, that is, to both defendants,
shall be first tried; and of this opinion was Littleton in our books,
for the trial of that goeth to the whole; and the other defendant
shall have advantage thereof, for in a personal action the discharge
of one is the discharge of both. As for example, if one of the
defendants in trespass plead a release to himself, which in law
extends to both, and the other pleads not guilty, which extends
but to himself; or if one plead a plea which excuses himself only,
and the other pleads another plea which goeth to the whole, the
plea which goeth to the whole shall be first tried; for, if that be
found, it maketh an end of all, and the other defendant shall take
advantage hereof, because the discharge of one is the discharge
of both. But in a plea real it is otherwise; for every tenant may
lose his part of the lands. As if a praecipe be brought as heir to
his father against two, and one plead a plea which extendeth but
to himself and the other pleads a plea which extends to both, as
bastardy in the demandant, and it is found for him, yet the other
issue shall be tried, for he shall not take advantage of the plea of
the other, because one joint tenant may lose his part by his
misplea."(2;)

In an action of trespass for taking certain goods and chattels,
against two defendants, the one pleaded a special justification, and
the other not guilty; upon both of which pleas issue being joined,
a jury was sworn, who found a verdict *for the defendant on the
special plea, and found the other defendant guilty, and assessed
damages and costs. Upon a motion in arrest of judgment it was
held, that if the one defendant justifies by the gift of the goods so
ms to destroy the plaintiff's title, and shews, that he could not have
cause of action, which is found accordingly for that defendant,
although the other defendant be found guilty, yet no judgment

(*) Co. Litt. 125.