566 INDEX.

EVIDENCE— Contiwned.

to be essential to the ascertainment of truth, should be broken down
or disregarded. K.

S, The rules of evidence in regard to explaining, or varying, or contradict-
ing written evidence, are the same in courts of equity as in courts of
law. Elysville Manvfacturmg Co. vs. Okuko Co., 392.

9. It was urged, that the defendants should be required to offer proof in
support of some statements of the answer, though responsive to the
bill; because such proof was within their reach, whilst it was inac-
cessible to the complainants. HELD—That the rule that the answer
when responsive to the averments of the bill, shall be taken as true,
unless discredited by two witnesses, or one witness with pregnant cir-
cumstances, is not subject to the modification which the introduction
of sucl^ a principle would involve. Thvnvpsw, vs. IHjfenderfer, 489.

10. Evidence of declarations, made by a husband during coverture, is not
admissible against creditors of the husband to establish a secret parol
agreement between him and the wife, in reference to property stand-
ing in the husband's name during his lifetime. Brooks vs. Dent, 5S3.

11. Parol evidence is admissible to show, that an absolute conveyance was
intended as a mortgage, and that the defeasance was omitted or de-
stroyed by fraud or mistake. Sank, of Westminister vs. Whyte, 536.

12. But unless accident, fraud or mistake can be shown, or in cases of,
trusts, parol evidence cannot, either at law or in equity, be admitted to
contradict, add to, or vary the terms Of a will, deed or other instru-
ment. Ib.

13. It is competent to show the intention of the wife to charge her sepa-
rate estate by parol evidence. Conn vs. Cwu, 212.
See AGENT, I.

SALES B-S TRUSTEES, 11.

PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 26, 34, 35.
EXCEPTIONS TO ANSWER.

1. Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency can only be sustained where

some material allegation, charge or interrogatory of the bill is not

fully answered. West vs. Williams, 358.
3. The court, must see by referring to the bill alone, in connection with

the exceptions, that the precise matters as to which a further answer

is sought, are stated in the bill, or that such an answer is called for by

the interrogatories. 16.
3. Exceptions to an answer, upon the ground that the defendant did not

give a detailed account of the management of a trust fund, which came

to hiSthanda as agent, were overruled, because the bill only called upon

him for an account of the business of the trust and not for an account

of the busineas of the trust and agency. Ib.
EXECUTED AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCES.
See Coi»vB7*NCEs, VACATINC OF, 1.

CORPBIIATIOMS, 5.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See DOWER, 4.