LINGAN v. HENDERSOW.

of the inheritance. It was held, that there could be no decree
against her; but the bill was taken pro confess® against the husband
only, and he was ordered to account for all the profits of the land
received since the coverture, and the profits which should be received
during the coverture, &c.(i)

Whence it appears, that in equity as at law, where the defence
made by any one defendant extends only so far as to cover nothing
more than the interest of him by whom it is made, the plaintiff may
yet have relief if he establishes his claim against the other defend-
ants; but that where the defence made by one defendant goes to
the whole cause of complaint, and the plaintiff fails to establish
his case in opposition to such defence, he cannot be relieved in any
way whatever, although his claim should be confessed by the other
defendants.

In a case where Whistler had given his note to Jolliffe for the
payment of $4500, in Turkey, where Jolliffe continued to reside
some time before his return to England, Whistler, after the giving
of this note, made his will, appointing Pitt his executor, and died.
Some time after Pitt having come to England and qualified as
executor, Jolliffe filed a bill in chancery against him, and some
others, the creditors of his testator, for an account of the assets
and for the recovery of this debt. The defendant Pitt submitted
to do as the court should direct; but the defendant creditors
insisted the plaintiff was bound by the statute of limitations. The
Chancellor inclined to the opinion, that the statute of limitations
was not to take place. The time till Whistler*s death being answered,
and the executor being beyond sea, the statute of 4 and 5 Anne,
c. 16, s. 19, took place, which saves the right of action as well
where the debtor is beyond sea as where the creditor is beyond sea.
Whereupon the case was referred to the master to take an account
and to allow the plaintiff's claim, &c.( j) This is all that is said
by the court in relation to the bearing of the several defences;
whence it is evident, that had not Jolliffe's claim been taken out
of the statute of limitations, as relied on by only a part of the
defendants, he could have had no relief, even although the executor
had submitted to do as the court should direct.

A fame covert before her marriage, with the consent of her then
intended husband, conveyed an estate to her separate use, and after
her marriage she borrowed ,£25 upon her bond: ten years after-

(t) Ward v. Meath, 2 Ca. Cha. 173.~(j) Jolliffe v. Pitt, 2 Vern 694.