160 SALMON r. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

like those made in his answer. Tompkin v. Ashby, 22 Com. Law
Rep. 239.

It appears then, that the answer called for by the bill, is as to a
certain set of facts therein stated, and the defendant, is required to
*say whether they are true or false; and to set forth all he
141 knows about them; it extends so far and no farther.

The object in calling for an answer is to serve the purposes of
the plaintiff, not of the defendant. The plaintiff' calls for it as evi-
dence, and it is equivalent to parol evidence, as to all matters
where such testimony is available. But. the necessary consequence
of this position is, that since the plaintiff' has called on the defend-
dant to testify, by way of answer, it is to the full extent of the call,
or so far as it is responsive to the bill, competent evidence; which
cannot be overturned by the testimony of one witness alone: and
the answer so called for is evidence to this extent, although it be
made by defendant deeply interested, or by one who is incompe-
tent as a witness in ordinary cases; or by a corporation aggregate
under its seal without oath.

A defendant may allege any facts in his answer, as an avoidance,
which give rise to an equity that constitutes a good defence, as
payment, a release, &c.; and, however generally or darkly any
such matter may be stated, the plaintiff' canaot except; because
they form no part of that response he had called for; and if such
statements are so obscure as to be of no avail, it can be of no in-

of complaint were executed, that the deeds mention a valuable considera-
tion, at least what the law admits to be so, that he sees receipts of the pay-
ments endorsed on the deeds; and, that from those he must take his know-
ledge, as he himself was neither present, nor in the county at the time of
executing the same. The defendant further says, that he does admit, that
David Bissett died intestate; that as his eldest lawful brother, and heir-at-
law, he entered upon, and holds the said lands; that he has in his possession
the deeds of the same; particularly those mentioned in the bill; as also his
account and memorandum books, and does not recollect, that he ever in any
of them observed any telling or minute of the said consideration money
mentioned in the said deeds being marked, or mentioning the same being
paid. The defendant further answering says, that he obtained such warrant
of resurvey. had the certificate of resurvey returned; and, that the same
lies still in the office unpatented; further says, that the alienation fine, for
the six hundred and forty-three acres of vacant land, added, was paid by
David Bissett. And lastly, the defendant further answering, says, that he
never was requested to resurvey the said lands, as set forth in the said bill
of complaint; but says, that, if he had. the complainant would have met
with the refusal asserted in the said bill; and therefore, the defendant
humbly prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges
in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

This plea and answer were signed and sworn to on the 12th day of August.
1761, before a Justico of the Peace in the usual form.

Chancery Proceedings, lib. D. D. No. J. fol. 60. The plea was allowed and '
the bill dismissed without costs. 1 H. & McH. 211.