162 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

tion or matter in avoidance, embodied in the shape of an answer;
and 5, a defence found at the hearing as the production of the
whole ease as then presented for adjudication. Each of these
modes of defence is strikingly distinguishable from the rest, and
it is of importance, that they should, in no manner, nor in any
stage of the proceedings be confounded with each other.

It is a general rule, that a defendant who submits to answer
must answer as fully as the bill requires. If the defendant after
appearance fails to make any answer whatever, then process may
be issued against him for the contempt, or the bill may be taken
pro confesso. If he answer; but does so imperfectly or evasively,
then, upon exceptions taken by the plaintiff, he may be made to
answer fully. The plaintiff's remedy for an insufficient answer,
if he wishes all the material matters of his bill fully answered, is
by taking exception, which brings the question before the Court;
whether the * defendant has answered as fully as he was
143 required to do by the bill. The determination of that ques-
tion always involves the preliminary inquiries; whether the plain-
tiff making the demand has the capacity to make it; and also,
whether his case is such a one as gives him any claim to an answer.
All the deviations from this rule, that a defendant who submits to
answer must answer fully, have sprung from the consideration of
this preliminary investigation.

The plaintiff, we have seen, must, by his bill, present such a
case as falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Court; and, it
must also appear, that he has a legal capacity to sue; for his title
to sue is a par of his case which he must make out at the hearing.
Newman v. Willis, 2 Bro. C. C. 147. Every bill, therefore, assumes
those two propositions. But, if that should not be the case, or
either of them should be untrue, it is not indispensably necessary,
that the defendant should make the objection by demurrer, by plea,
or by relying upon it in his answer. For, although he cannot, after
he has answered, have the bill revised and divested of its imperti-
nence; Abergavenny v. Abergavenny, 2 P. Will. 312; Annonymous,
2 Ves. 631; yet an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, or to
the capacity of the plaintiff may be presented in any form, or at
any time; it may be made by demurrer, plea, or answer, or it may
be taken advantage of at the hearing. Brown v. Bradshaw, Prec.
Chan. 153; Jennet v. Bishop, 1 Vern. 184; Penn v. Baltimore, 1
Ves. 446; Roberdeau v. Rows, 1 Atk. 544. And so too, at law, a
defendant may, on the same grounds, demur, plead, or move in
arrest of judgment. 1 Chit. Plea, ,7 and 427. It is not said, in
any of the English authorities, that a denial of jurisdiction for-
bids all inquiry into the nature of the case, on the contrary, a
clear understanding of it is indispensably necessary, in order to
determine, whether it be, in truth, one of which the Court has no
jurisdiction. And if the fact does not satisfactorily appear from