the same time, he swears to the translation as true and just, to the best of his ability. When the answer is taken abroad in a foreign language, the court will order it to be interpreted by a sworn interpreter, and the translation to be filed with the original.147

§ 323. Answer of a corporation.

The answer of a corporation is usually put in under the corporate seal, and without oath, and should be signed by the president.148 No particular form of seal is necessary.149 An answer not under seal has been suppressed even though the secretary stated under oath that the company had no seal.150 The court may, however, dispense with the seal.151 Where it is the object of a corporation to obtain the dissolution of an injunction, the answer should be verified by the oath of some of the officers of the corporation who are acquainted with the facts.152 Where a suit is instituted against a corporation. sole, he must appear and defend and be proceeded against in the same manner as if he were a private individual.153

147 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 326; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 154, 155; Bank v. Solomons, 1 Fowler, Exch. Pr. 427; Simmonds v. Du Barre, 3 Brown Ch. 263. See, also, Hays v. Lequin, 1 Hogan, 274. An answer by a defendant, a resident of a foreign country, must be taken under a dedimus issued to a commissioner, and sworn to under the most solemn form observed by the laws and usages of such country. 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 144; Ramkissenseat v. Barker, 1 Atk. 19; Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. C. C. 335, Fed. Cas. No. 11,607. See supra, § 309.

1481 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 156; Vermilyea v. Fulton Bank, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 37; Teter v. West Virginia Cent. & P. Ry. Co., 35 W. Va. 433, 14 S. E. 146; Fulton County Sup'rs v. Mississippi & W. R. Co., 21 Ill. 338; Smith v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 599. See supra, § 47; Dost, § 654.

149 Ransom v. Stonington Sav. Bank, 13 N. J. Eq. 212. 150 Ransom v. Stonington Sav. Bank, 13 N. J. Eq. 212.

151 Ransom v. Stonington Sav. Bank, 13 N. J. Eq. 212.

152 Fulton Bank v. New York & Sharon Canal Co., 1 Paige (N. Y.) 311. See supra, § 47.

158 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 158.

§ 324. Answers by married women.

It is a general rule that in a suit against husband and wife the husband must procure the joint answer of himself and his wife to be put in, or the bill may be taken as confessed against both. If either party wishes to answer separately, an order should be first obtained allowing it. Where the wife lives separate from her husband, and is not under his control, the court will, upon an affidavit verifying the circumstances, give the husband leave to put in a separate answer.154

§ 325. Answer by defendant in contempt.

No answer can be received from a defendant who stands in contempt till he is discharged of such contempt.155

§ 326. Answering amended bill.

In answering an amended bill, if the defendant has answered the original bill, he should answer only those matters which have been introduced by amendment.156

§ 327. Time when defendant must answer.

An answer is not strictly considered such until filed.157 The time when a defendant is to answer is a matter fixed by the general regulations or practice of the particular court. It is a general rule that the defendant is not bound to answer to a

154 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 325; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 150; Robbins v. Abrahams, 5 N. J. Eq. 16; Toole v. De Kay, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 385. Owing to the fact that the disabilities of a married woman have been largely removed by statutory enactments, the former rules prevailing relative to answers by married women have ceased to be of much practical application. A full discussion thereof can be found in 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 150-154.

155 Gant v. Gant, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 464; Lane v. Ellzey, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 504; Saylor v. Mockbie, 9 Iowa, 209; Johnson v. Pinney, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 646; Vowles v. Young, 9 Ves. 173; v. Gort, 1 Hogan,

77. See, also, Walker v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 260, where the cases are fully reviewed. See post, § 559.

156 Casserly v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 124 Mich. 157, 82 N. W. 841; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 159.

1571 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 146; Giles v. Eaton, 54 Me. 186.

cross bill until the other party has put in his answer to the original bill.158 A party is not bound to answer the part of the bill demurred to until after the demurrer is decided.159 On a rule to answer on or before a certain day, it is a sufficient compliance with the rule that the answer is filed before a motion for a default, though after the day.160 If a necessary party be added to the bill, he is entitled to the same time to answer and plead as an original defendant.161 If a defendant puts in a demurrer after an order for further time to answer, it is irregular.162 An order for further time is usually applied for ex parte; but where the application is made after the time has expired, or after a former order for time, notice of it should be given.163 A defendant who wishes further time to put in his answer must make his application before an attachment has been issued against him for want of an answer; otherwise, he will be in contempt, and will not be allowed to make it.184

$328. Answering by favor of court.

Where a defendant answers by favor of court, he must be restricted to an equitable answer; but where he has a right to

138 Story, Eq. Pl. § 845; Long v. Burton, 2 Atk. 218. See United States Equity Rules 61 and 66. See post, § 904.

159 Ballance v. Loomiss, 22 Ill. 82.

160 Dunn v. Keegin, 4 Ill. 292; Hoxie v. Scott, Clarke, Ch. (N. Y.) 457. See supra, §§ 221, 277.

161 Hoxey v. Carey, 12 Ga. 534; Van Leonard v. Stocks, 12 Ga. 546. See, however, McDougald v. Dougherty, 14 Ga. 676. See, for time for filing answer in federal courts, Nelson v. Eaton, 27 U. S. App. 677, 66 Fed. 376; Oliver v. Decatur, 4 Cranch, C. C. 458, Fed. Cas. No. 10,494; Heyman v. Uhlman, 34 Fed. 686; Hendrickson v. Bradley, 55 U. S. App. 715, 85 Fed. 508.

1621 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 147; Burrall v. Raineteaux, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 331.

1631 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 147; 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 229. By the Irish practice, a notice of application for time to answer, and an affidavit filed in support of it, prevented all further proceedings by the complainant until the motion was disposed of by the court. Ormsby v. Palmer, 1 Hogan, 191.

184 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 148; Taylor v. Fisher, 6 Sim. 566.

answer, such limitation cannot be imposed.165 When a defendant asks leave to open a decree and defend as a matter of favor, leave will not be granted if the defense rests on the ground of

167

The court may, for good cause shown, allow an answer to be withdrawn after proof taken and a demurrer to be filed,1 especially if the bill does not state a title to the discovery and relief sought.168

§ 330. Taking answer from the files.

In case any irregularity has occurred either in the frame or form of an answer, or in the taking or filing of it, the complainant may take advantage of such irregularity by moving to take the answer from the files. Thus, where a defect occurs in the title, so that it does not distinctly appear whose answer it is, or to what bill it is an answer, or where the complainant is misnamed in the title, the answer may, on motion of the complainant, be ordered to be taken from the file for irregularity.16 In such case the motion should be, not "to take the answer of C. D.," etc., off the file, but it should be called in the notice a certain paper writing purporting to be the answer.170 An answer may also be ordered to be taken off the file for the purpose of being produced before the grand jury on an indictment

165 Vanderveer's Adm'r v. Holcomb, 22 N. J. Eq. 555; Collard v. Smith, 13 N. J. Eq. 43.

166 Marsh v. Lasher, 13 N. J. Eq. 253. See, also, supra, § 157.

167 Weisiger v. Richmond Ice Machine Co., 90 Va. 795, 20 S. E. 361; Merchant v. Preston, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 280; Chesnutt v. Frazier, 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 217.

168 Kimbrough v. Curtis, 50 Miss. 117. For other cases involving withdrawal of answer, see Phelps v. Elliott, 30 Fed. 396; Williams v. Carle, 10 N. J. Eq. 543; White v. Joyce, 158 U. S. 128.

1091 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 168; Fulton County Sup'rs v. Mississippi & W. R. Co., 21 Ill. 338; Griffiths v. Wood, 11 Ves. 62; Travers v. Ross, 14 N. J. Eq. 254.

170 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 168; Griffiths v. Wood, 11 Ves. 62.

for perjury preferred by the complainant; but this will not be permitted where it appears that the alleged perjury is in a part wholly immaterial to the merits of the cause.171 A complainant must apply to the court for an order to take an answer off the file for irregularity before he accepts the answer; otherwise, the right to make the application will be considered waived, except in the case of an irregularity in the jurat, or of an omission in the oath of the defendant.172 If any part of the answer is responsive to any material fact in the bill, it will not be ordered taken from the file. The proper remedy is to except for insufficiency.173

171 Thompson v. Crosthwaite, 2 Younge & J. 512; McGowan v. Hall, 1 Hayes, 17.

1721 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 170; Pilkington v. Himsworth, 1 Younge & C. 612; Fulton Bank v. Beach, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 307; Bailey Washing Machine Co. v. Young, 12 Blatchf. 199, Fed. Cas. No. 751. See Nesbitt v. Dallam, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 494. For cases where an answer has been ordered taken from the files, see Cope v. Parry, 1 Madd. 83; Harris v. James, 3 Brown Ch. 399; Cooke v. Westall, 1 Madd. 265; Kimball v. Ward, Walk. (Mich.) 439; Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, Fed. Cas. No. 11,481. See, also, for taking answers off the file, May v. Williams, 17 Ala. 23; Denison v. Bassford, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 370; McLure v. Colclough, 17 Ala. 89; Bernier v. Bernier, 72 Mich. 43, 40 N. W. 50; Conway v. Wilson, 44 N. J. Eq. 457, 11 Atl. 734; Smith v. Serle, 14 Ves. 415; Tomkin v. Lethbridge, 9 Ves. 178; Brooks v. Purton, 1 Younge & C. 278; White v. Howard, 2 De Gex & S. 223; New York Chemical Co. v. Flowers, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 654; American Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Bayard, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 610.

173 May v. Williams, 17 Ala. 23; Carpenter v. Gray, 38 N. J. Eq. 135; Feuchtwanger v. McCool, 29 N. J. Eq. 151; Travers v. Ross, 14 N. J. Eq. 254. In Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, Fed. Cas. No. 11,481, an answer of a person not named in the bill, nor admitted as a defendant, was stricken from the files.

Equity-23

(353)