LINGAN v. HENDERSON.

Whence it appears, that in the view which the Chancellor took
of this case he had deemed it entirely useless to trace what might
have been the effect, if Clason had succeeded in establishing his
defence; because as he had failed to do so, and the taking of the
bill pro con/esso against Stanly concluded to the same point, it was
entirely unnecessary to say how far Clason's defence, if it had
been established, should enure to the benefit of Stanly, notwith-
standing his default. But it is clear, that the effect of a valid
defence having been made by one defendant, and the bill hav-
ing been taken pro confesso against the other, was necessarily
involved in the final judgment according to either of the views
taken of the case by the appellate court. And from what was said
by them in regard to the general principle, that where one of two
or more defendants makes a defence which so effectually goes to
the whole as to shew, 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, it is perfectly manifest, that the court were unanimous;
and that the only difference of opinion among them, in this respect,
was, not as to this general principle; but how far the case, then
before them, could be considered as one in which the whole cause
of suit had been met and repelled by the defence of Clason. The
majority of the court held, that his defence did embrace the whole,
and was, therefore, a conclusive bar to any relief as well against
Stanly, as against Clason. But the minority of the court were of
opinion, that Clason's defence did not properly and necessarily
comprehend any thing more than his own separate claim; because
he might be regarded, in that case, as attempting to enforce the
payment of the whole of a debt due to himself and his partner,
when his partner had, by his default, which was equivalent to a
release, acknowledged satisfaction to the amount of his share of
the debt; and therefore, although the defendant Clason had fully
sustained his defence; yet, as his claim -extended no further than to
a moiety of the debt, according to the terms of the partnership
between him and Stanly, and the manner in which it had been dis-
solved; the plaintiffs might well have the decree affirmed against
Stanly alone. This then is a solemn adjudication in equity directly
upon the point in question; and it is a decision which must be
admitted to have great claims to respect, as well because of the
sound legal reasoning by which it is sustained, as because of its