THE BANK v. DUG-AN.— 2 BLAND. 241

submitted without argument, the proceedings were read and con-
sidered.

In general, wherever a plaintiff has an interest in any books or
papers, which a defendant, by his answer, admits to be in his pos-
session, he may be ordered to produce them on petition of the
plaintiff, specifying what books or papers are wanted. Ringgold
v. Jones, 1 Bland, 90, note; 2 Mad. Pr. Chan. 390; 1 Newland Chan.
109. But, iu this instance, the plaintiffs, by their third exception,
object to the sufficiency of the answer; because, the defendant has
not brought into Court the books of James Clarke, and the bond
of the defendant. So far as the bill calls for any disclosure respect-
ing those books, or that bond, which have not been answered, the
answer may be deemed insufficient and exceptionable; but, al-
though the production of those books and papers is a part of the
discovery, which this defendant, on his submitting to answer is
bound to make, yet the taking of exceptions to his answer, because
of his not producing them, is not the mode in which a defendant
may b« compelled to produce books and papers for the benefit of
the plaintiff in the progress of the case, or at the final hearing; the
application to have any such documents, as a defendant admits
to be, in his possession or under his control, brought in, must be
made by petition. 1 Harris Pra. Chan. 322; Wagram Discovery, 14.
This third exception must therefore be overruled.

The defendant having submitted to answer, must, according to
the established rule, answer fully as to every fact in any way mate-
rial *and pertinent to the plaintiff's case as set forth in his 257
bill. Muzarredo v. Maitland, 3 Mad. 69; Salmon v. Clagett, 257
post. But this defendant, after having thus submitted to answer,
has offered a plea, covering the whole ground of his answer, in
which lie pleads and relies upon a decree, in another tribunal, upon
the same matter, as a bar to this suit. A plea must always rest
upon that which shews, that the defendant should not be com-
pelled to answer at all; ami therefore, an answer to any thing re-
lied on by way of plea overrules the plea; because, if a defendant
answers to the matter covered by his plea he thereby waives his
plea; and, hence it is an established rule, that where a defendant
pleads and answers to the same ease, the answer overrules the
plea. Consequently, even supposing this plea to be good and
available if it had stood alone, it is clearly overruled by the answer
to which it has been subjoined. Cottington v. Fletcher, 2 Atk. 155;
Blacket v. Langlands, Anstr. 14; Forum Rom. 58; James v. Sad-
grove, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 3; Hannah K. Chase's, Case, 1 Bland,
217.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the third exception of the plain-

tiffs to the answer of the defendant be overruled; and that all the

other exceptions of the plaintiffs thereto be sustained; and that

the defendant pay unto the plaintiffs all the costs of the said ex-

16 2 B.