GRAIN VS. BARNES AND FERGUSSON. 155

tion will be allowed at the hearing, though not raised upon the
pleading, but certainly the general rule is, that it comes too
late, if dpfprrsd to the hearing of the cause. Watertonvs. Cow-
en, 4 Paige, 510; 1 Daniel's Ch., Prac., 350. Mr. Justice
Story says, in cases of misjoinder of plaintiffs, the objection
ought to be taken by demurrer; for if not so taken, and the
court proceeds to a hearing upon the merits, it will be disre-
garded, at least if it does not materially affect the propriety of
the decree. Story's Equity Plead., secs. 540,544. In the case
before the court, it is not seen how the misjoinder of the
parties can affect the propriety of the decree.

There is no conflict between them, the beneficial interest
being admitted by the bill to be in Baraes Compton, the minor,
and the administrator of his mother having only become such
and united in the suit, that a full indemnity might be given the
defendants, upon the payment of the legacy.

The case of Rhodes vs. Wharbutton, 6 Sim. resjo., 617, is
express to show, that such an association of parties as com-
plainants, is not even faulty upon demurrer.

Courts of equity are not, in the dispensation of justice, sub-
ject to those strict technical rules, which in other courts are
sometimes found in the way, and so difficult to surmount. The
remedies here are moulded, so as to reach, if practicable, the
real merits of the controversy, and justice will not be suffered
to be entangled in a web of technicalities. If such a decree
can be put upon the record as will meet the substantial justice
of the case, it will be done. The Court of Appeals of this
state, in the case of McCormick vs. Gibbon, 3 Gill & Johnson,
12, shows, conclusively, that a defence like the present, cannot
at all events be brought forward for the first time at this stage
of the proceedings, when if presented at an earlier period the
objection could have been removed by an amendment of the
bill. In the case referred to, the court say, a decree may give
relief to both complainants, or separate and distinct relief to
each. As to one, the bill may be dismissed, whilst full relief
is granted to the other. And that the same principle applies to
the defendants, is also stated in the same case, the relief being