NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND. 553

The bills, through a portion of them, seem to consider the next
of kin, or as it calls them, the heirs of the late Anthony Hook,
to be parties to this suit. But they have neither been made plain-
tiffs nor defendants as such; and therefore, all that has been said
or proved about them and their agreements must be rejected as
mere surplusage. William McMechen, a defendant, says he an-
swers "the bill of complaint of James Neale and others, represen-
tatives* of Anthony Hook, deceased:" and, in the body of
his answer he says, "during all which time several of the com- 567
plainants resided in the neighborhood of the land." And others of
the defendants seem to have an eye to some other complainant be-
sides Neale. These respondents appear, in this respect, to have
turned their attention to some of the irrelevant circumstances stated
in the bill, without sufficiently regarding its substance. But all
such expressions and allusions in the answers must in like manner,
be rejected as surplusage.

So much as to the excrescences, the foreign matter and mere
careless verbiage of the bill and some of the answers. But before
we proceed to consider the merits of the case it will be necessary
to ascertain from these pleadings, as accurately as practicable,
what is the matter in issue; and what part of the allegations of
each has been admitted, taken for true, or is to be sustained or
combatted by proof. In relation to these matters it will be neces-
sary to explain, recollect and apply some of the general rules in
relation to answers.

The first of these general rules, which have a bearing upon this
case, is, that where the general replication is put in, and the par-
ties proceed to a hearing, all the allegations of the answer, which
are responsive to the bill, shall be taken for true; unless they are
disproved by two witnesses, or by one witness with pregnant cir-
cumstances. The answer to this extent is considered as evidence,
and conclusive unless disproved, even although the defendant may
have a direct and palpable interest in establishing the truth of
what he advances. Lenox v. Prout, 3 Wheat. 527. An answer is
only so far responsive as it answers to a material statement or
charge in the bill as to which a disclosure is sought; and which is
the subject of parol proof, but no further. Where a deed, or in-
strument of writing is necessary to establish any right, and the bill
requires the evidence of such right, the answer, unaccompanied
and unsupported by such deed or writing, will be no evidence
although it should directly respond to the bill; because the answer
is only in the nature of parol evidence; and, in such case evidence
of a higher grade is required by law. Brown v. Selwin, Ca. Temp.
Tal. 242; Hayward v. Car roll, 4 H. & J. 521; Jones v. Slubey, 5 H.
& J. 381.

But where the bill asks for the production of evidence, which
from the nature of the plaintiff's case, he has a right to claim;