to the court. If a special answer is necessary or advisable for the purpose of bringing such rights before the court, the same should be put in. If the infant is a nominal party, or has no defense to the bill, and no equitable rights against his co-defendants, a general answer is sufficient.139 It is the duty of a court to see that the rights of infants are not prejudiced or abandoned by the answers of their guardians.140 Upon his arriving at full age, an infant is entitled to put in a new answer.141 Application to do so must be made as early as possible after attaining majority, and must be supported by an affidavit that he can make a better defense than that previously put in.142 The answer of an infant by his guardian ad litem is considered a pleading, merely, and not an examination for the purpose of discovIt is not evidence in his favor or against him, though responsive to the bill and sworn to by his guardian ad litem.143

ery.

§ 319. Form of general answer of infant by guardian ad litem. [Title of court and cause.]

The answer of C. D., an infant under the age of twenty-one years, by M. H., his guardian ad litem, one of the defendants, to the original bill of complaint of A. B.:

This defendant, answering by his guardian, says that he is an infant of the age of years or thereabouts, and he therefore submits his rights and interests in the matters in question in this cause to the protection of this honorable court.

G. H.,

State of

C. D.,

By M. H., His Guardian ad Litem.

Solicitor for M. H., Guardian ad Litem for Said C. D., an Infant,

County of

SS.

M. H., the guardian ad litem of the above-named infant, was, on this

139 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 148; Knickerbacker v. De Freest, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 304. See supra, § 11.

140 Barrett v. Oliver, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 191; Davidson v. Bowden, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 134.

141 Stephenson v. Stephenson, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 353.

142 Bennet v. Leigh, 1 Dickens, 89.

142 Stephenson v. Stephenson, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 353; Bulkley v. Van Wyck, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 536; Chaffin v. Heirs of Kimball, 23 Ill. 33.

day of

A. D.

sworn before me, that he had read the foregoing answer, and that he is informed, and believes, that the matters therein stated are true.

Subscribed, etc.

M. H.

§ 320. Answer of persons non compos mentis, or under physical disabilities.

The answer of an idiot or lunatic is similar to that of an infant, and should be sworn to by his committee in the same manner as the answer of an infant is verified by his guardian ad litem. The same course of proceeding seems proper where the defendant is deaf and dumb.144 Where a defendant is blind, some other person must swear that he has truly, distinctly, and audibly read over the contents of the answer to the defendant, who must also swear to the answer.145

§ 321. Answer of an illiterate person.

If the defendant is unable to read, the regular course of practice in England was for his solicitor to read the answer to him, and to make oath before the officer taking it that he has read it truly. The officer states this in his certificate.146

§ 322. Answer of a foreigner.

In the case of a foreigner not familiar with the English language, an order is obtained for an interpreter, and the answer, being engrossed in the foreign language, a translation thereof must be made by the interpreter and annexed. The foreigner is required to be sworn to his answer, in order to do which the interpreter attending is previously sworn to interpret truly, and conveys to the defendant the language of the oath. At

144 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 315; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 324; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 154, 155. See supra, § 13. Unless the court has ordered a commission to issue to take the answer of such a person. 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 155. 145 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 155.

1401 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 240; Attorney General v. Malim, 1 Younge, 376; Pilkington v. Himsworth, 1 Younge & C. 612; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 155; Hayes v. Lequin, 1 Hogan, 274. See supra, § 309.

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.

148 1 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.164

$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

158 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.

163 1 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.

164 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 148; Taylor v. Fisher, 6 Sim. 566.