erally regulated by statute or rules of court. The oath, when administered to a person who professes the Christian religion, is upon the Holy Evangelists, except in cases where a different form of oath or affirmation is authorized to be used by a statute.86 Persons who do not believe the Christian faith must, of necessity, be put to swear according to their own notion of an oath.87 In case of a foreigner not acquainted with the language, an order must be obtained for an interpreter.88 Where the verification of an answer is upon "knowledge, information, and belief," not pointing out what statements are respectively upon knowledge, information, and belief, the whole answer must be treated as upon information and belief.89

86 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 326; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 144.

87 Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 21.

Where an answer pur

88 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 326; Story, Eq. Pl. § 874. ports to be the answer of two or more, and is not sworn to by all, it may be taken off the file, or can be received only as the answer of him who has sworn to it. Binney's Case, 2 Bland (Md.) 99. See, also, De Walt v. Doran, 21 D. C. 163; Ballard v. Kennedy, 34 Fla. 483, 16 So. 327. It is no ground of exception to an answer that it, being the answer of a corporation, is not sworn to by any officer or representative thereof. The proper remedy is a motion to take the answer from the files. Osgood v. A. S. Aloe Instrument Co., 69 Fed. 291. An answer should, in general, be sworn to, but it must be allowed to have full effect as such though made by one who is incompetent to give testimony in any case as a witness, or who is incapable of making oath. Salmon v. Clagett, 3 Bland (Md.) 125. An an swer of a defendant residing out of the state is a judicial record of the state in which it is to be used, and must be authenticated according to the laws of such state. Contee v. Dawson, 2 Bland (Md.) 264; Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland (Md.) 352, 17 Am. Dec. 306. Where a bill requires an answer under oath, an answer with a draft of an affidavit attached, signed by defendant, but without the authentication of the jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths, will be treated as no answer. Westerfield v. Bried, 26 N. J. Eq. 357. Where the jurat to an answer stated that the defendant swore that the facts stated in the answer were true, it was held that the word "facts" was equivalent to "matters." Whelpley v. Van Epps, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 332, 37 Am. Dec. 400. The court may remedy an objection that an answer is not signed or verified by allowing its signature and verification. Holton v. Guinn, 65 Fed. 450.

89 Pickett v. Gore (Tenn. Ch. App.) 58 S. W. 402; McKissick 7. Mar tin, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 313.

309. Forms of orders concerning verification and of juratsOrder to take answer without oath or signature.

Title of court and cause.]

On reading and filing the written consent of J. E., solicitor for complainant, that the answer of the said defendant, C. D., to the bill in this cause be taken without oath [or the signature] of said C. D., and ɔn motion of J. L., solicitor for the said defendant,

It is ordered that such answer of the said defendant may be put in without oath [or being signed] by the said C. D.

Form of order appointing interpreter.

[Title of court and cause.]

On reading and filing the petition of the complainant in this cause, and on motion of J. L. G., solicitor for said complainant,

It is ordered that M. N., of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and state of Illinois, be, and he is hereby, appointed an interpreter to enable the said C. D. to put in his answer to the bill of complaint filed in this cause.

Form of jurat to answer of an illiterate person.

The defendant, A. B., not being able to read or write, C. D., solicitor for the said defendant, was sworn that he had truly and faithfully read the contents of this answer to the said A. B., and that he appeared perfectly to understand the same. And the said A. B. was thereupon sworn that he had heard the said answer, subscribed by him with his mark, read, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on his information or belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true.90

90 For form of this jurat, see 3 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. lxxviii.

appointed for that purpose, and who was previously sworn by me truly to interpret the same, and, being so sworn, the said C. D. did say that he knows the contents of the said answer, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters, etc. [as in the ordinary jurat].91

The joint and several answer of Charles Jones and William Smith, defendants, to the bill of complaint of John Doe, by James Doe, his father and next friend, complainant:

These defendants, now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to themselves all manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the many errors and insufficiencies in the complainant's said bill of complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or to so much or such parts thereof as these defendants are advised is material for them to make answer unto, they answer and say they admit that Richard Roe, in the complainant's bill named, did duly make and execute such last will and testament, in writing, of said date, and to such purpose and effect as is in the complainant's said bill of complaint mentioned and set forth, and did thereby bequeath to the complainant, John Doe, such legacy of three thousand dollars, in the words for that purpose mentioned in the said bill, or words to a like purport or effect.

These defendants, further answering, say that they admit that the said testator died on or about the 25th day of March, 1896, without revoking or altering the said will.

And these defendants, further answering, admit that they, these defendants, some time afterwards, to-wit, on or about the 1st day of May, 1896, duly proved the said last will and testament in the probate court of the said county of Cook, and letters testamentary were granted by said court, and thereupon these defendants took upon themselves the burden of the execution of the said last will and testament; and these defendants are ready to produce their letters testamentary and a certified copy of said will, as this honorable court shall direct.

And these defendants, further answering, admit that the said complainant, John Doe, by his said father and next friend, did, several times since the said legacy of three thousand dollars became payable, apply to these defendants to have the said legacy paid or secured for the benefit of the said complainant, which these defendants declined, by reason that the said complainant was and still is an infant under

91 For forms of oaths of interpreters to answers of foreigners, and jurats to such answers, see 3 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. lxxv-lxxvi.

the age of twenty-one years, wherefore these defendants could not, as they are advised, be safe in making such payment or in securing the said legacy in any manner for the benefit of the said complainant, except by the order and direction and under the sanction of this honorable court.

And these defendants, further answering, say that, by virtue of the said will of the said testator, they have possessed themselves of the real and personal estate, goods, chattels, and effects of the said testator to a considerable amount, and do admit that effects of the said testator have come to their hands sufficient to satisfy the complainant's said legacy, and which assets they admit to be sufficient to the payment thereof, and are willing and desirous, and do hereby offer, to pay the same as this honorable court shall direct, being indemnified therein.†

And these defendants deny all unlawful combination and confederacy in the said bill charged, without that any other matter or thing material or necessary for these defendants to make answer unto, and not herein and hereby well or sufficiently answered unto, confessed or avoided, traversed or denied, is true to the knowledge or belief of these defendants. All which matters and things these defendants are ready to aver, maintain, and prove, as this honorable court shall direct, and humbly pray to be hence dismissed, with their reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

Charles Jones and William Smith, being duly sworn, depose and say that they have read [or heard read] the foregoing answer, subscribed by them, and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of their own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on their information and belief, and as to those matters they believe it to be true.

Charles Jones.
William Smith.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of May, A. D. 1898. E. F.,

Notary Public.

311. Forms of averments-Where defendant is entirely ignorant with regard to statement in bill.

And this defendant, further answering, says he knows not, and has (337)

not been informed, save by the said complainant's said bill, and can. not set forth as to his belief or otherwise, whether the said complainant has or has not applied for or procured letters of administration of the goods, chattels, rights, and credits of the said Richard Roe, to be granted to him by or from a proper or any court of probate, nor whether, etc.

Defendant believing, but not knowing, the statement to be true.

And this defendant further says that he has never heard nor been informed, save by the complainant's bill, whether, etc.; but this defendant believes that, etc., as in the said bill is alleged.

Setting up statute of limitations.

And these defendants, in addition to the foregoing answer, aver that the cause of action, if any there may be, arising to the complainants on account or by reason of the several allegations and complaints in their said bill contained, did not accrue within

years before the

said bill was filed; and this allegation the defendants make in bar of the said complainants' bill, and pray that they may have the same benefit therefrom as if they had formally pleaded the same.

-Setting up statute of frauds.

This defendant says that no agreement in writing for purchase of the said premises, or any part thereof, nor any memorandum or note thereof in writing, has been made, entered into, or signed by him, or by any person thereunto by him lawfully authorized; and he claims the benefit of the statute passed for the prevention of frauds and perjuries, in the same manner as if he had pleaded or demurred to the said complainant's bill.

Claiming benefit of defense as if bill had been demurred to for want of equity.

And this defendant submits to this honorable court that all and every of the matters in the said complainant's bill mentioned and complained of are matters which may be tried and determined at law, and with respect to which the said complainant is not entitled to any relief from a court of equity, and this defendant hopes that he shall have the same benefit of this defense as if he had demurred to com plainant's bill.

And this defendant denies [insert all matter after † in form of an swer heretofore given].