HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE. 217

in this same property; that the matter of those suits was finally
settled, and thus they were dismissed; and therefore, they plead
those suits, the agreement, and the dismissal of them in bar of the
claim now made by the plaintiff.

But these defendants, not content with resting their case upon
the matter thus set out by way of plea, have gone on to repeat the
whole of the same matter, and to rely upon it by way of answer.
The bill always calls for an answer from the defendant as to all the
matters of fact therein set forth. But one of the peculiar and
proper offices of a plea is to present such a defence as shews, that
the defendant cannot be compelled to make, or may well be excused
from making such an answer as the bill calls for; and therefore,
upon the ground of inconsistency, the defendant cannot be per-
mitted, by way of plea, to aver, that he ought not to be compelled
to answer, as called upon in relation to any particular matter, and
at the same time to put his defence, as to the same matter, into
the form of such an answer as the bill calls for. Hence if a
defendant answers to any thing as to which he has pleaded, he
thereby overrules his plea; for his plea is only why he should not
answer, so that if he answers he waives his plea to the same mat-
ter. The same principle is equally applicable to demurring and
answering, and to demurring and pleading to the same part.(h)
The plea of these defendants must, therefore, be totally rejected;
as being overruled by the subsequent answer, covering exactly the
same matter; and I have the less hesitation in thus striking it out,
because it is evident, from the answer, that nothing at all necessary
to the sound merits of the defence will be lost.

But in the answer itself, of these defendants, there are matters
which may be safely banished from it without in the least enfee-
bling the force of the defence. That which is related of the matter
of the bill, filed on the 17th of February, 1813, by this plaintiff and
John P. Paca; what is said about the letter, and the conveyances
from John E. Howard to the late Samuel Chase; what is related
of the late Samuel Chase's intentions to make advancements of
property to his children; and the allegations respecting the rough
draft of his will, with some other particulars of less note, cannot
certainly be at all material to the defence. I shall, therefore, lay
them aside, as in no way necessary to the present matter in con-
troversy.

(fc) Gilb. For. Rom. 58; Mitf. Tr. 320; Beams' PL Equ. 39.
28