CHANCERY 619

if they occupied positions of plaintiff and defendant upon the record, and
may so decree as between co-defendants to the cause; provided such decrees
shall be founded upon the allegations of the pleading between the plaintiffs
and defendants, and have immediate connection with the subject-matter of

the suit.

Where a bill is multifarious, a demurrer should be sustained and the bill, as to the
matter misjoined, dismissed under this section. Complainants may then proceed as to
subject-matter retained. Belt v. Bowie, 65 Md. 354.

The improvident joinder of one subject in a cross-bill, will not affect the jurisdiction
of the court to decree relief as to other subjects properly included. Hooper v. Central
Trust Co., 81 Md. 582.

Relief may be given to plaintiffs against co-plaintiffs, and to defendants against co-
defendants. Whitridge v. Whitridge, 76 Md. 62 (opinion of the lower court concurred
in by dissenting opinion).

As to a decree against the plaintiff, see sec. 240.

Cited but not construed in Jones v. Gordy, 169 Md. 173.

Cited in Noel v. Noel, 173 Md. 164.

Secs. 202 to 206 referred to—see notes to sec. 203. Brown v. Scott, 138 Md. 240.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 199. 1912, sec. 184. 1904, sec. 175. 1888, sec. 162. Rule 32.

205. If the defendant shall, at the hearing of the cause, object that
the suit is defective for want of parties, not having by demurrer or answer
taken the objection, and therein specified by name or description the parties
to whom the objection applies, the court or judge thereof, if it be deemed
proper, shall be at liberty to make a decree, saving the rights of the absent
parties, or may require the plaintiff to bring in such absent party, upon
such terms as the court may prescribe as to costs.

Secs. 202 to 206 referred to—see notes to sec. 203. Brown v. Scott, 138 Md. 240.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 200. 1912, sec. 185. 1904, sec. 176. 1888, sec. 163. Rule 33.

206. Where the defendant shall, by his demurrer or answer, suggest
that the bill is defective for want of parties, the plaintiff shall be at liberty
within fifteen days after answer filed, to set down the cause for argument
upon that objection only; and the clerk, at the instance of the plaintiff,
shall make entry thereof in his docket in the following form: "Set down
upon the defendant's objection fpr want of parties." And if the plaintiff
shall not set down the cause, but shall proceed therewith to a hearing, not-
withstanding the objection for want of parties taken by the answer, he
shall not, at the hearing of the cause, if the defendant's objection for want
of parties be then allowed, be entitled as of course, to an order for liberty
to amend his bill by adding parties; but the court or judge thereof may,
if it be thought fit, dismiss the bill. If, however, the cause be set down upon
the objection taken, and, upon hearing, the objection be allowed, the plain-
tiff shall have liberty to amend, upon paying the cost of amendment.

Where the answer sets up a want of proper parties, and the plaintiff fails to have the
matter specially set for hearing as provided in this section, if the court finally holds
that proper parties have not been made, the bill may be dismissed. How the failure of
the answer to point out what parties have been omitted, should be taken advantage of.
Mishler v. Finch, 104 Md. 185.

The question of whether proper parties have been made, must be determined before
the bill is dismissed under this section, and that question is reviewable on appeal.
Ridgely v. Wilmer, 97 Md. 728.

Secs. 202 to 206 referred to—see notes to sec: 203. Brown v. Scott, 138 Md. 240.

As to amendment in equity, see secs. 18, 182 and 193.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 201. 1912, sec. 186. 1904, sec. 177. 1888, sec. 164. Rule 48.

207. All final decrees, and orders in the nature of final decrees, shall
be considered as enrolled from and after the expiration of thirty days from
the date of the same, the day of the date inclusive.