|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 569
instances. A defendant, to a bill of discovery, answered a portion
of it, and as to all the other matters therein set forth, he answered
and said, that he had no other knowledge of them than what he
had obtained confidentially as counsel; and, therefore, declined
answering further; this answer was deemed sufficient. And,
again, a defendant answered as to part, and as to the residue relied
upon the statute of limitations; this answer also was held to be
sufficient. In such cases, a part of the answer performs the office
of a plea; and the defendant thus makes defence to the whole case
by a disclosure of all the facts so far as he is bound so to respond;
and for the residue, by presenting such an equitable bar to the
plaintiff's claim as is a sufficient excuse for not answering in the
manner required by the bill. The exact compass of this modifica-
tion of the rule, that if a defendant submits to answer at all, he
must answer fully, remains yet to be adjusted. Much has been
said upon the subject; but, as the cases in relation to this Dis-
tracted point, ' as it has been called, have no bearing upon the case
now under consideration, they have been thus generally noticed
merely to prevent misapprehension, (w)
A fourth general rule, is one which grows out of the third rule,
that exacts a full answer; and requires to be attentively considered
in this case; it is, that where the defendant fails to answer any part
of the material allegations of the bill, such unanswered allegations
shall, at the hearing, be taken to be true. Thus, where the bill
demands the delivery of two pieces of property, and the answer
makes defence as to one, but is totally silent as to the other. In
such case, according to this rule, the bill may be taken pro confesso
for that as to which the answer is silent; and the plaintiff may ob-
tain a decree accordingly, (x)
The propriety of this rule has, however, been questioned; and,
therefore, it stands in need of all the support it can derive from
authority, reason and analogy.
If, upon exceptions, the answer is held to be insufficient, the
defendant will be ordered to answer more fully; and if he fails to
do so, in England, sequestration will go against his estate. The
plaintiff need not, however, stop there, but may proceed to have
his whole bill taken pro confesso; for the court is in the habit of
(w) 2 Mad. Chan. Pra. 339; Salmon v. Clagett, ante 142. —(x) Blown v. Pittman,
Gilb, Eq. Rep. 75; Abergavenny v. Abergavenny, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 179.
72 v. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
