404 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.

On a proper bill to account, after a decree to account, both parties
are considered as actors, and therefore, according as the balance
may be shewn, there may be a decree in favour of the defendant,
or in favour of the plaintiff, (x) But it is not essentially necessary,
in other cases, that the decree should directly respond to the special
prayer of the bill, by merely denying relief upon the case; or by
granting it to the plaintiff, either conditionally or partially, or
entirely as prayed. The matter in controversy being fully devel-
oped, a decree may, in several instances, be framed to meet the
case disclosed, altogether apart from the relief which the plaintiff
asks for himself.(y) As where a bill is filed against two or more
defendants, and it appears that some of them are answerable only
in the second degree, that is, as agents of a principal; in such
case the principal will be first charged, and the agents only in the
second degree, or upon the default of the principal ;(z) and so too,
where it appears that one is principal, and the others are sureties,
the court will, if called on when about to give the plaintiff the
relief he seeks, go on to decree over as against the one who is
principal, that in case the decree in favour of the plaintiff is satis-
fied by the sureties, they shall be reimbursed by their principal, (a)
And where there are two or more defendants, a decree may be
passed as between any two of them, when a case is made out
between them by evidence arising from the pleadings and proofs
between the plaintiff and defendants.(b) And also where, on a bill
for a specific performance, the defendant proves an agreement
different from that insisted on by the plaintiff, he may have a decree
upon his answer submitting to. perform the agreement; and this
without a cross-bill, which was formerly deemed necessary.(c)
And it has been the practice of this court in similar cases, without
a cross-bill, to decree as well in favour of the defendant, as of the
plaintiff, where it appeared from the nature of the agreement or
transaction between them, that each was bound to pay money or
to perform some act for the benefit of the other, (d) And even a
direct decree in favour of the plaintiff may, in its consequences,

(x) Done's case, 1 P. Will. 263; Anonymous, 3 Atk. 691; Horwood v. Schmedes,
12 Yes. 316; Bodkin v. Clancy,1 Ball & Bea. 217; Davis v. Walsh, 2 H. & J. 329; 1825,
ch. 158.—(y) Johnson v. Johnson, 1 Mun. 554, note.—(z) The Charitable Corporation
v. Button, 9 Mod. 356; 2 Atk. 406.—(a) Walker v. Preswick, 2 Yes. 622; Taylor v.
Ficklin, 5 Mun. 25; McNiel v. Baird, 6 Mun. 316.—(6) Chamley v, Dunsany,
2 Scho. & Lefr. 700,718; Conry v. Caulfield, 2 Ball & Bea. 255.—(c) Fife v. Clay-
ton, 13 Ves. 546; Higginson v. Clowes, ,15 Ves. 525.—(d) Dorsey v. Campbell,
ante, 056.