378 LINGAN v. HENDERSON.

make a contract of that nature, which shall be obligatory upon
all.(o)

Hence it follows, as a promise or acknowledgment can only
take a case out of the statute of limitations because of its being,
of itself, a new promise, or because of its being satisfactory evi-
dence of the renewment of the contract, it is perfectly clear, that
such promise or acknowledgment must come, not merely from
one alone, but from each, or all of the contractors, or from a part-
ner in trade who has a then power of contracting in the name of
all. And, consequently, a promise or acknowledgment of one
alone of several contractors, or of one partner, after the dis-
solution of the partnership, can no more take a case out of the
statute of limitations than the promise of one man can be allowed
to operate as an original obligation upon another, without his
consent, (p)

Where a plaintiff's cause of suit is made up of several distinct
parts, each of which may have been separately accounted for and
satisfied; there, as the statute may have a distinct operation against
each part, a plea of the statute of limitations may be supported as
a good bar to some of such separate parts, though not to the
whole.(o;) But a contract which is entire and indivisible in
its nature, must necessarily be altogether good or bad; it must be
executed as it stands, or be totally rejected. If it makes no dis-
crimination between the several contractors who are bound by it,
the court can make none, at least to the prejudice of him for whose
benefit it was made; since it is a settled axiom of law, from which
no court of justice has ever ventured substantially to depart, that
the obligation of a legal contract cannot be impaired in any way
whatever. So far as the courts of justice are concerned, all the
incidental as well as all the direct obligations of contracts have
been most sacredly preserved; and, that this inestimable judicial
rule should be made universal and unalterable, it has been declared

(o) Ex parts Dewdney, 15 Yes. 480; Whitcomb v. Whiting, Doug. 652; Tinkler
v. Walpole, 14 East, 226; Gow. Part. 79, 212; 4 Stark. Ev. 896; Blanch. Stat. Lim.
124; Clementson v. Williams, 8 Cran. 72; Clark v. Vanriemsdyk, 9 Cran. 156;
BeU v. Morrison, 1 Peter. 867; Walden v. Sherburne, 15 John. Rep. 409; Rootes v.
WeUford, 4 Man. 215; Fisher v. Tucker, 1 McCord, 172; Wilmer v. Harris, 5 H. &
J. 9; Wsjrd v. Howell, 5 H. & J, 60.—(p) Hyleing v. Hastings, 1 Ld. Raym. 399;
Boydell v. Drummond, 2 Camp. 157; Sterndale v. Hankinson, 1 Sim. 393; Jones v.
Moore, 5 Binn. 578.—(q) Webb v. Martin, 1 Levintz. 48; Coventry v. Apsley,
a Salk. 420; Aldridge v. Duke, 3 Mod. 110.