LINGAN v. HENDERSON. 27§

or all of them together, expressly rely upon it. But, as has been
shown, it is a well settled rule, in equity as well as at law, that any
defence coming from any one of a plurality of defendants, which
goes to the whole, and shows, that the plaintiff has no cause of
suit, effectually precludes the court from giving relief in any way
whatever against any other defendant, as well as against him who
makes such a defence; because a plaintiff can only obtain relief
upon the strength of his own title, and by shewing, that it is good
against all the world as well as against each one of the then
defendants; and also, because every court of justice must act con-
sistently, and cannot be allowed to contradict itself, by saying, in
the same decree, in the same case, that the plaintiff has no cause
of suit whatever; and also, that he has a just and well founded
cause of complaint, (m)

It may therefore be regarded as an inflexible general rule, which
admits of few, if any exceptions, that according to any view which
can be taken of the case, or upon any defence made against it, if it
appears, upon the whole record, that the plaintiff's title, or cause
of suit, is a mere nullity, or has been barred, satisfied, or extin-
guished in any way whatever, he can have no relief.

There are, however, some cases which present an apparent
exception to this general rule. A court of equity may, and always
does, shape its decree according to the nature of the case, so as
to place the burthen as nearly as may be where it ought to rest.
Where there are many defendants, and some or one of them only
is found liable to the plaintiff's cause of suit, the bill may be dis-
missed as to the others; or a defendant who has been made so
merely because of his being the depository of the fund, for the
purpose of having it detained in his hands by injunction, may, by
the dissolution of the injunction, cease to be a necessary party,
even before the case has been brought to a final hearing ;(n) or
if the plaintiff has a separate cause of suit against each, then
each of them may be charged according to their respective
liabllities; or where all the defendants are alike bound for the
whole to the plaintiff, but some of them stand only as sureties
for the other, there the court may, by a decree over, provide for
the relief of the sureties against their principal, in case they
should satisfy the claim, or direct a contribution, in case any one
surety should pay more than his proportion. These instances are

(m) Gregory v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 626.—(n) 2 Mad. Chan. 191.