The matter pleaded as an answer to the bill must be one thing, aud such a thing as is an answer to the whole of the plaintiff's demand, or to so much of the bill as the plea extends to. The defendant e,annot, according to the rules of equity pleading, plead in bar several and distinct matters, any one of which would be an answer to the bill. But if the averments aro averments of separate facts which form one material fact, such avermenta make a good plea; which is time ex pressed by Lord Eldon :—" The office of a plea generally is not to deny the equity, but to bring forward a fact which, if true, displaces it : not a single averment, as the averment in this answer, that no bill of sale was executed, but perhaps a series of circumstances forming in their combined result One fact which displaces the equity" (Lord Eldon, Rowe v. Teed, 15 Ye. 377).
The definition of a plea "not denying the equity, but bringing forward a fact which, if true, displaces it," is in substance the same as the definition of an exceptio by Gaius (iv. 119) :—" Guinea exceptiones in contrarium concipiuutur, quia adfirmat is, cum quo agitur." A defendant may disclaim all interest, right, or title in or to the matter of the plaintiff's bill ; but it will nearly always happen that such disclaimer will be an insufficient answer by itself, and that there will be parts of the bill to which it will bo necessary to give an answer.
A defendant may demur to a part of a bill as well as to the whole bill : he may also plead to a part of a bill as well as to the whole bill ; and he may demur, plead, answer, and disdain, with respect to the same bill. But it is very rare that any two of these ways of pleading are united, except an answer and disclaimer, on account of the practical difficulty attendant on such a mode of defence. For it follows from the nature of these ways of pleading that they must severally apply to substantially different parts of the bill. A man cannot plead to that matter to which he demurs; for to plead is to offer something as an answer sufficient in substance, though it may not be so in form, and to detour is to allege that he ought not to answer. For the same reason lie cannot answer, in the formal manner of an answer, to that to which be has either pleaded or demurred, having by pleading already offered something as a sufficient answer, and having by demurrer alleged that he ought not to answer. " A plea or answer will therefore overrule a demurrer, and an answer a plea ; and if a disclaimer and answer are inconsistent, the matter will be taken most strongly against the defen dant upon the disclaimer." (Milford, p. 320.)
Pleadings in equity were formerly continued, like pleadings at law, beyond the bill and answer. The plaintiff replied to the defendant's answer by his replication, which is defined to be " the plaintife's speech or answer to the defendant's answer, which must affirm and pursue his bill, and confesae and avoid, denie or traverse the defendant's answer." (West.) Thus if the answer denied the plaintiff's claim as stated in the bill, and suggested or stated some new matter, it was necessary for the plaintiff to make a special reply which was analogous to the defendant's answer. To meet this special replication, the defendant put hi a rejoinder, which is defined to be ' the answer which the defendant maketh to the plaintiff, replication, which must pursue and confirm his answer and not swerve from the same, and sufficiently confesse and avoid, defile or traverse each material part of the plaintif e replication. If the parties be not at issue by reason of some new matter disclosed in the defendant's rejoynder that requireth answer, then may the plaintif surrejoyne to the said rejoynder, and the defer). dant in like manner to the surrejoynder, if there be cause, which hapneth eerie seldome." (West.) This method of pleading by special replications and rejoinders is now disused, and all the objects of such proceedings are at present attained by the power which the plaintiff has of amending his bill and stating hie case in a better form after lie has seen the defendant's answer. The disuse of special replicationa has also led to the practice of frequently stating the plaintiff's case more completely in his bill in the first instance, and introducing numerous charges and Thus if the plaintiff anticipates that the defendant may plead to his bill, and so prevent him from obtaining the complete answer which he wishes, he will charge various matters in his bill which will destroy the effect of the anticipated plea, unless the defendant supports his plea by a full answer to such matters.
According to recent practice the plaintiff may at any time after the time allowed for answering has expired, move the court for a decree, in which he reliel entirely upon the admissions in the answer to substantiate his own case. If the answer is against him, he must file a replication, by which he joins issue with the defendant, and both sides are at liberty at once to go into evidence to support their several cases.