554 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

* that may be necessary and useful to him in other cases,.
568 Resides the one then under consideration, an answer to such
a bill is not responsive which merely asserts the fact without say-
ing anything of the evidence, of its existence, or the means of
obtaining it. And where a defendant, by his answer, asserts a
right affirmatively, in opposition to the plaintiff's demand, the
defendant must establish it by proof, or the assertion will be dis-
regarded; for a defendant cannot be permitted to swear himself
into a title to the plaintiff's estate. Ridgeway v. Darwin, 7 Ves.
404; Thompson v. Lambe. 7 Ves. 588; Boardman v. Jackson, 2 Ball
& B. 385; Beckwith v. Butler, 1 Wash. 224; Paynes v. Coles, 1 Mun.
395. But where an administrator is called upon to answer certain
matters which appear to have rested exclusively within the know-
ledge of his intestate, it will be sufficient, that he swears as he is
informed and believes; Carnan v. Vansant, 1807, MS. ; but such
an answer is to be taken with reference to the reasons given for
his belief; for if the reasons are fatile, and especially if the alleged
belief be in a high degree irreconcilable with the admitted or
established circumstances of the case, the answer cannot be
credited, nor be allowed thus loosely to swear away the equity of
the bill. Clark v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cran. 160; Tony v. Oliver, 1
Bland, 198.

A second general rule is, that every allegation of the answer
which is not directly responsive to the bill, but sets forth matter
in avoidance or in bar of the plaintiff's claim is denied by the
general replication, and must be fully proved or it will have no
effect.

A third general rule is, that if the defendant submits to answer
a all, he must answer fully and particularly; not merely limiting
his responses to the interrogatories of the bill; but respond to the
whole and every substantial part of the plaintiff's case. He is not,
however, bound to go further, and to answer any interrogatory
asking a disclosure of matter no way connected with or material
to the case. If the answer be in any respect evasive or insuffi-
cient, the plaintiff may except to it; and thus extract from his
opponent a full and perfect answer. Beam's Orders, 28, 179;
Hinds v. Dod, Barnard. 258; S. C. 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 69; Paxton's
Case, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 67; S. C. Sel. Cas. Cha. 53; King v. Marissal,
3 Atk. 192; Radford v. Wilson, 3 Atk. 815; Hepburn v. Durand, 1
Bro. C. C. 503; Deane v. Rastrow, 1 Anstr. 64; Prout v. Underwood,
2 CM, 135; Mountford v. Taylor. 6 Ves. 792; White v. Williams, 8
Ves. 193; Somerville v. Mackay, 16 Ves. 382; ———— v. Harrison, 4
Mad. 252; Wharton v. Wharton, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 117.

But to this general rule there is a modification, the nature and
bearing of which may be sufficiently illustrated by one or two

* instances. A defendant, to a bill of discovery, answered
569 a portion of it, and as to all the other matters therein set