494 MORETON v. HARRISON.

allowed to plead, at the same time, two or more pleas in bar ;(b)
and, in all civil cases, the defendant is allowed, by the statute of
Ami, which has always been the received law here, to plead double.
Equity follows the law; and the peculiarly liberal principles of our
code seem to require, that this court should not be more technical,
or less willing than a court of common law, to receive the defend-
ant's defence in any number, or variety of forms deemed necessary
by him, to render it completely effectual; for the reason why du-
plicity should not be allowed in the same plea, does not apply as
against several distinct pleas.(c) Although a plea is not the only
mode of defence in chancery; and there may not be as great a
necessity to allow a defendant to plead double in equity as at law;
yet it is sufficient, that justice may in most instances be promoted
by it; and that no positive mischief is likely to arise from it in
equity more than at law. Long experience has satisfied every one
of its utility at law; and there is no apparent sound reason which
forbids the adoption of a similar practice in courts of equity, (d)

(6) 2 Hawk. c. 23, s. 128, 137; 2 Hale PL Cro. 239, 243; The King v. Gibson,
8 East, 107; The Commonwealths Myers, 1 Virg. Ca. 138.—(c) 2 Mont. Dig. 99, 100.
(d) 1829, ch. 220.—RIDGLEY v. WARFIELD.—This bill, filed 5th May 1779, states,
that the plaintiff and defendant deduce their title to certain land from a certain Rich-
ard Davis, but that the conveyance from one of the sons and devisees of Davis to the
defendant, had in fact conveyed to him more than it was intended and meant to
convey. Prayer, that the defendant might be confined to the true extent of the grant,
&c.—To this bill the defendant presented the following defence.

The pleas and demurrer of Seth Warfield to the bill of complaint of Henry
Ridgley.—The said defendant by protestation, not confessing or acknowledging all
or any of the matters or things in and by the said bill of complaint set forth and
alleged to be true, in such manner and form as the same are therein set forth; as to
so much and such part of the said bill, which seeks a discovery or relief from this
defendant relating to any parol contract, or agreement made or supposed to be made
between Thomas Davis and Stephen Steward, in the said bill mentioned, for the said
tract of land called Davis's Purchase, or any part thereof different or variant from the
deed said to have been executed in the said bill, on or about the twenty-ninth day of
November seventeen hundred and fifty-six, by the said Thomas Davis to the said
Stephen Steward; and as to so much of the said bill which seeks a discovery or relief
from this defendant relating to any parol contract or agreement made or supposed to
be made between the said Stephen Steward and this defendant for the said tract of
land called Davis's Purchase, or any part thereof, different or variant from the deed or
conveyance said to have been executed, (in the said bill,) on or about the fourteenth
day of December seventeen hundred and sixty-two, by the said Stephen Steward and
Joshua Davis to this defendant: He, this defendant, doth plead, that by an act of
Parliament, made in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of his late Majesty King
Charles the second, entitled an Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuries, it is,
amongst other things, enacted; that, from and after the twenty-fourth day of June
sixteen hundred and seventy-seven, no action shall be brought, whereby to charge

*