SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND. 169

manner as such a plea would have done; therefore, this and others
of a similar nature, may be denominated affirmative exceptions,

There are various instances in which a defendunt has been al-
lowed to take shelter from the discovery sought of him by denying
the title or some material fact constituting the title of the plaintiff.
A denial of the whole demand has been held to be a sufficient an-
swer, and one which affords protection against the discovery re-
quired. Phelips v. Caney, 4 Ves. 107. *The plaintiff claimed
tithes according to a particular custom. The custom being 151
denied by the answer, it was held to be sufficient; and to preclude
the right to the discovery prayed. Randal v. Head, Hardr. 188.
A plaintiff claimed as next of kin; the answer denied his being iiext
of kin and it was considered as sufficient, and a bar to the discovery
called for. Street v. Young, Amb. 353. A plaintiff claimed as a
partner; a denial of the partnership, by way of answer, was deemed .
sufficient, and a bar to the discovery. Hall v. Noyes. 3 Bro. C. C.
487; Jacobs v. Goodman, 2 Cox, 282. The plaintiff alleged, that his
claim arose from a specified mode of dealing, the answer denied
the mode of dealing; and it was held to be sufficient, and a bar to
the discovery. Donnegal v. Stewart, 3 Ves. 446. These are all
the cases, that have fallen under my observation in which the ex-
ception was produced by a negation in the defendant's answer.

1 have met with two cases, furnishing but one instance of an ex-
ception, arising from an averment of some new matter in avoid-
ance; and that is, where the defendant alleged, that he was a pur-
chaser for a valuable consideration without notice. In the first of
them, the answer was held to be sufficient, and a bar to the dis-
covery required by the bill. Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jun..458;
Ovey v. Leighton, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 433.

Such have been the adjudications upon this subject; out, as it is
the reason and spirit of eases which make law, and not the letter of
particular precedents, we may be permitted to investigate the
solidity of the reasons of these decisions. The reports of some of
them furnish no reason of any kind; and therefore, I shall not ven-
ture to guess at what might have been the reasons on which the
judgment of the Court was founded.

In one of these cases in which the plaintiff' demanded tithes ac-
cording to a particular custom, the Court is reported to have said,
that where, there is a full answer given to the thing in demand, till
that be tried, the defendant is not obliged to discover; otherwise,
any plaintiff might, upon a feigned suggestion, compel a defendant
to discover what writings he has, or what goods, or other thing
whatsoever, upon pretence, that lie is joint-tenant with him; and
so what he has gained by his trade, which would be strangely in-
convenient. Randal v. Head, Hardr. 188. In another of them
where the alleged partnership was denied only in the answer; in
reply to the argument, that the defendant could only have pro