ANONYMOUS. Without name.
Books published without the name of the author are said to be anonymous. Cases in the reports of which the names of the parties are not given are said to be anonymous.
An anonymous society in the Mexican code is one which has no firm name and is designated by the particular designation of the object of the undertaking. The share holders are liable for debts only to the ex tent of their shares. ' A defence in writing, made by a defendant to the charges contained in a bill or information filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity.
In case relief is sought by the bill, the answer contains both the defendant's de fence to the case made by the bill, and the examination of the defendant, on oath, as to the facts charged in the bill, of which discovery is sought ; Gresley, Eq. Ev. 19 ; Jeremy's Mitf. Eq. Pl. 15, 16. These parts were kept distinct from each other in the civil law; their union, in chancery, has caused much confusion, in equity pleading; Langd. Eq. Pl. 41; Story, Eq Pl. § 850; Dan. Ch. PL & Pr. •711.
As to the form of the answer, it usually contains, in the following order ; the title, specifying which of the defendants it is the answer of, and the names of the plaintiffs in the cause in which it is filed as answer ; 8 Yes. 79 ; 11 id. 62 ; 1 Russ. 441; see Mc Lure v. Colclough, 17 Ala. 89 ; a reservation to the defendant of all the advantages which might be taken by exception to the bill, which is mainly effectual in regard to other suits ; Beames, Eq. Pl. 46; Surget v. Byers, 1 Hempst. 715, Fed. Cas. No. 13,629 ; O'Niell v. Cole, 4 Md. 107; the suostance of the an swer, according to the defendant's knowl edge, remembrance, information, and belief, in which the matter of the bill, with the in terrogatories founded thereon, are answered, one after the other, together with such ad ditional matter as the defendant thinks nec essary to bring forward in his defence, ei ther for the purpose of qualifying or adding to the case made by the bill, or to state a new case on his own behalf ; a general trav erse or denial of all unlawful combinations charged in the bill, and of all other matters therein contained not expressly answered.
The answer must be upon oath of the de fendant, or, if of a corporation, under its seal; Langd. Eq. P1. § 78 ; Bisp. Eq. 9 ; Roys ton v. Royston, 21 Ga. 161; Lahens Y. Fielden, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 22; see Maryland & N. Y.
Coal & Iron Co. v. Wingert, 8 GM (Md.) 170; 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. *734; Van Valten burg v. Alberry, 10 Ia. 264; unless the plain tiff waives an oath ; Story, Eq. Pl. § 824; Bingham v. Yeomans, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 58; Chace v. Holmes, 2 Gray (Mass.) 431; Clem ents v. Moore, 6 Wall. (IT. S.) 299, 18 L. Ed. 786; Brown v. Bulkley, 14 N. J. Eq. 306; Wallwork v. Derby, 40 Ill. 527; in which case it must generally be signed by the de fendant; 6 Ves. 171, 285; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 326; Van Valtenburg v. Alberry, 10 Ia. 264; and must be signed by counsel; Story, Eq, Pl. § 876; unless taken by commissioners; Davis v. Davidson, 4 McL. 136, Fed. Cas. No. 3,631; 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. •732. It is held that a corporation cannot be compelled to answer under oath ; Colgate v. Compagnie Frangaise du Telegraphe De Paris A. N. Y., 23 Fed. 82 ; Coca-Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co., 200 Fed. 720, 119 C. C. A. 164. Where the bill waives an answer under oath, the waiv er is ineffectual unless accepted ; Heath v. Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 6,306; and if the de fendant, notwithstanding the waiver, an swers under oath, the answer has the same effect as if there had been no waiver; Con ley v. Nallor, 118 U. S. 127, 6 Sup. Ct. 1001, 30 L. Ed. 112 ; Woodruff v. R. Co., 30 Fed. 91; but it is held that even if its answer when sworn to is evidence under the equity rule, it cannot prove an affirmative defence; Coca-Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co., 200 Fed. 720, 119 C. C. A. 164 (C. C. A. 6 Circ.).
Where bill waives answer under oath, the bill ceases to be a bill of discovery, and the defendant need not answer interrogatories therein ; McFarland v.' Bank, 132 Fed. 399. An averment that "defendant has no knowl edge or belief" as to defendant's corporate capacity is sufficient to put plaintiff on proof thereof ; W. L. Wells Co. v. Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 177, 25 Sup. Ct. 640, 49 L. Ed. 1003.