|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
568 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.
that may be necessary and useful to him in other cases, besides
the one then under consideration, an answer to such a bill is not
responsive which merely asserts the fact without saying 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 estab-
lish it by proof, or the assertion will be disregarded; for a defen-
dant cannot be permitted to swear himself into a title to the plain-
tiff's estate, (r) But where an administrator is called upon to
answer certain matters which appear to have rested exclusively
within the knowledge of his intestate, it will be sufficient, that he
swears as he is informed and believes; (s) but such an answer is
to be taken with reference to the reasons given for his belief; for
if the reasons are futile, and especially if the alleged belief be in
a high degree irreconcilable with the admitted or established cir-
cumstances of the case, the answer cannot be credited, nor be
allowed thus loosely to swear away the equity of the bill, (t)
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
at 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, (u)
But to this general rule there is a modification, the nature and
bearing of which may be sufficiently illustrated by one or two
(r) Ridgeway v. Darwin, 7 Ves. 404; Thompson v. Lambe, 7 Ves. 588; Board-
man v. Jackson, 2 Ball & B. 385; Beckwith v. Butler, 1 Wash. 224; Paynes v.
Coles, 1 Mun. 305. —(s) Carnan v. Vansant, 1807, M. S. —(t) Clark v. Van Riems-
dyk, 9 Cran. 160; Tong v. Oliver, 1 Bland, 198-(u) Beam's Orders, 28, 179;
Hinds v. Dod, Barnard. 258; S. C. 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 69; Paxton's case, 2 Eq. Ca.
Ate. 67; S, C. Sel. Cas. Cha. 53; King v. Marissal, 3 Atk. 192; Radford v. Wil-
son, 3 Atk. 815; Hepburn r. Durand, 1 Bro. C. C. 503; Deane v. Rastron, 1 Anstr.
64; Prout v. Underwood, 2 Cox, 135; Mountford v. Taylor, 6 Ves. 792; White P.
Williams, 8 Ves. 103; Somerville v. Mackay, 16 Yes. 382; ——— v. Harrison, 4
Mad. 252; Wharton v. Wharton, I Cond. Cha. Rep. 117.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
