§ 198. Abandonment or waiver of demurrer.

A demurrer to a bill, on which no action is taken, is waived by a subsequent answer, 23 or by proceeding to a trial on the merits, 24 Where the complainant fails to stand by his original bill after demurrer sustained thereto, and files an amended bill free from the objections raised on demurrer, he cannot urge the insufficiency of the demurrer on appeal.25 Whether one of two defendants to a bill has waived his right to demur thereto will be immaterial when both defendants filed a joint and several demurrer, as the demurrer of one of the defendants will be sufficient to raise the question of the sufficiency of the bill.26 When the defendant moves, and is granted leave, to withdraw his demurrer and file an answer, he waives such demurrer, and thereafter it is not to be considered as pending.2

§ 199. Admissions by demurrer.

27

A demurrer to a bill admits the truth of all matters therein stated which are well pleaded.28 It does not admit averments shall be held bad and overruled, on argument, only because the answer may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by such demurrer or plea. See Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. 702; Crescent City Live-Stock, Landing & Slaughter House Co. v. Butchers' Union LiveStock, Landing & Slaughter House Co., 12 Fed. 225; Mercantile Trust L'o. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. 379.

23 Bauerle v. Long, 165 Ill. 340, 46 N. E. 227; Ray's Adm'r v. Womble, 56 Ala. 32; McLane v. Johnson, 59 Vt. 237, 9 Atl. 837; Wade v. Pulsifer, 54 Vt. 45; Strang v. Richmond, P. & C. R. Co., 101 Fed. 511.

24 Daughdrill v. Helms, 53 Ala. 62; Kiernan v. Blackwell, 27 Ark. 235; Waterman v. Buck, 63 Vt. 544, 22 Atl. 15; Chattanooga Grocery Co. v. Livingston (Tenn. Ch. App.) 59 S. W. 470; Harding v. Egin, 2 Tenn. Ch. 39.

25 Lookout Bank v. Susong, 90 Tenn. 590, 18 S. W. 389.

26 Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Speyer, 138 Ill. 137, 27 N. E. 931. The filing of a cross bill after a demurrer to the bill does not prevent the court from considering the demurrer. Bennett v. Bennett (N. J. Err. & App.) 49 Atl. 501.

27 Wilson v. Derrwaldt, 100 Ill. App. 396.

28 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 211, 213; Story, Eq. Pl. § 452; Baker v. Booker, 6 Price, 381; Myers v. Wright, 33 Ill. 284; Roby v. Cossitt, 78 Ill. 638; Maddox v. White, 4 Md. 72, 59 Am. Dec. 67; Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 430; Baker v. Atkins, 62 Me. 205.

amounting to statements of law, nor mere legal conclusions, 29 nor statements of arguments.30 Where the averment is that the complainant is informed and believes that certain things are true, the demurrer admits that complainant is so informed and does so believe, but not that the information is true.31 Where there is an inconsistency between an averment in a bill and a written instrument attached thereto as an exhibit, a demurrer does not admit the truth of the conflicting averment in the bill.32

A demurrer to a bill in which perjury is distinctly and specifically alleged is, for the purposes required by the demurrer, equivalent to a party's own confession of the crime, or to competent evidence of his legal conviction thereof.33 Any material fact which is stated with legal certainty anywhere in the stating part of the bill is well pleaded, and therefore admitted by a demurrer.34 Where there are several defendants, a demurrer of the principal defendant admits the facts alleged only as between the complainant and himself.35 A demurrer is always preceded by a protestation against the truth of the matters contained

29 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 111; Story, Eq. Pl. § 452; Cornell v. Green, 43 Fed. 105; Preston v. Smith, 26 Fed. 884; Stow v. Russell, 36 Ill. 18; Churchill Township v. Cummings Township, 51 Mich. 446, 16 N. W. 805; Partee v. Kortrecht, 54 Miss. 66; Dauphin v. Key, MacArthur & M. (D. C.) 203; Pearson v. Tower, 55 N. H. 36; Tompson v. National Bank of Redemption, 106 Mass. 128; Lockhart v. Leeds (N. M.) 63 Pac. 48.

30 Johnson v. Roberts, 102 Ill. 655.

81 Walton v. Westwood, 73 Ill. 125; Trimble v. American Sugar-Refining Co. (N. J. Eq.) 48 Atl. 912; Vickers v. Cowell, 7 Jur. 51; Egremont v. Cowell, 5 Beav. 620; Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 Ves. Sr. 56. See supra, § 100.

32 National Park Bank of New York v. Halle, 30 Ill. App. 17. See Lea v. Robeson, 12 Gray (Mass.) 280; Le Baron v. Shepherd, 21 Mich. 262; Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 139 U. S. 569. See, also, Ulman v. Iaeger, 67 Fed. 980. A demurrer gives no legal effect to an allegation in opposition to the record (Green v. Dodge, 6 Ohio, 80, 25 Am. Dec. 736), nor to a matter, such as legislative acts and records, of which the court is bound to take judicial notice (Griffin v. Augusta & K. R. Co., 72 Ga. 423). See supra, § 99.

83 Craft v. Thompson, 51 N. H. 536. 84 Paterson & Hudson River R. Co. v. 35 Edwards v. Edwards, 2 Strob. Eq. 5 Sim. 406.

Jersey City, 9 N. J. Eq. 434.
(S. C.) 101; Penfold v. Nunn,

in the bill,—a practice probably intended to avoid any conclusion in another suit, for in the present suit it is wholly without effect.3

36

$ 200. Speaking demurrer.

Care must be taken, in framing a demurrer, that it be made to rely only upon the facts stated in the bill; otherwise, it will be what is termed a "speaking demurrer," that is, a demurrer which states facts not appearing on the face of the bill,—and will be overruled.37

§ 201. Separate demurrers.

A defendant may put in separate demurrers to separate and distinct parts of a bill for separate and distinct causes; for the same grounds of demurrer, frequently, will not apply to different parts of a bill, though the whole may be liable to demurrer; and in such a case one demurrer may be overruled upon argument, and another allowed.38

A defendant may, at the hearing of his demurrer, orally assign another cause of demurrer, different from or in addition to those assigned upon the record, which, if valid, will support the demurrer, although the causes of demurrer stated in the demurrer itself are held to be invalid: This oral statement of a cause of demurrer at the bar is called "demurring ore tenus."39

26 Mitford, Eq. Pl. 212; Story, Eq. Pl. § 452; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 212. 37 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 111; Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 447, 448; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 107; Brooks v. Gibbons, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 374; Davies v. Williams, 1 Sim. 5; Cawthorn v. Chalie, 2 Sim. & S. 127; Saxon v. Barksdale, 4 Desaus. (S. C.) 522; Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sr. 245; Edsell v. Buchanan, 2 Ves. Jr. 83; Kuypers v. Reformed Dutch Church, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 570; Pendlebury v. Walker, 4 Younge & C. Exch. 424; Southern Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; Black v. Shreeve, 7 N. J. Eq. 440; Richardson v. Loree, 94 Fed. 375; Stewart v. Masterson, 131 U. S. 151. 38 Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 438, 444; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 106, 107; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 107; North v. Strafford, 3 P. Wms. 148; Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544.

39 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 112; Story, Eq. Pl. § 464; 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 218; 1

A defendant cannot demur ore tenus unless there is a demurrer on the record.40 Where a new cause of demurrer is assigned ore tenus, the cause must be coextensive with the demurrer upon the record.41 Want of equity in the substance of a bill may be assigned ore tenus.42 Under a general demurrer for want of equity, a demurrer ore tenus may be made for want of parties.43 Misjoinder may be assigned as cause for a demurrer ore tenus at the argument, though a general demurrer for want of equity be overruled.44 So may an objection that the suit is brought by a feme covert in her own name, instead of by her next friend.45 It has been held that a demurrer ore tenus must extend to the whole bill, and cannot be made to a part only.46 A demurrer ore tenus is only allowed upon new grounds, and not where a written demurrer on the same point has been overruled.47 Demurrers ore tenus are not encouraged; and when the demurrer filed is overruled, although the demurrer ore ten

Barbour, Ch. Pr. 108; McDermott v. Blois, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 281; Vanhorn v. Duckworth, 42 N. C. 261; Tourton v. Flower, 3 P. Wms. 371; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 143; Burk v. Muskegon Machine & Foundry Co., 98 Mich. 614, 57 N. W. 804.

40 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 112; Story, Eq. Pl. § 464; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109; Durdant v. Redman, 1 Vern. 78; Hook v. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227; Attorney General v. Brown, 1 Swanst. 288. Therefore, there cannot be a demurrer ore tenus after a plea overruled. 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 220; Hook v. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227.

411 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109; Pitts v. Short, 17 Ves. 213; Metcalf v. Brown, 5 Price, 560; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. 126; Clark v. Davis, Har. (Mich.) 227; Van Orden v. Van Orden (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 671.

42 Hastings v. Belden, 55 Vt. 273.

48 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109; Stillwell v. McNeely, 2 N. J. Eq. 305; Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 231; Tourton v. Flower, 3 P. Wms 371; Van Orden v. Van Orden (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 671.

44 Barrett v. Doughty, 25 N. J. Eq. 379.

45 Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 440.

46 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 219; Story, Eq. Pl. § 464; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109; Shepherd v. Lloyd, 2 Younge & J. 490; Baker v. Mellish, 11 Ves. 70. It has also been said, however, that after a demurrer to part of a bill has been overruled the defendant may demur ore tenus to the same part. 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109, citing Crouch v. Hickin, 1 Keen, 385. 47 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 109; Bowman v. Lygon, 1 Anst., 1.

us has been allowed, the general rule seems to be that the demurrant must pay the costs of the demurrer on record. 48

§ 203. Demurrer to bill good in part.

A demurrer to a whole bill must be overruled if the bill, taken altogether, entitles the complainant to some kind of relief.49 Where a bill contains sufficient allegations of fact to constitute a cause of action, mere conclusions of law do not take away the effect of such allegations.50 Thus, where a bill seeks discovery and relief, and is sustainable for relief, a demurrer to the whole bill cannot be sustained, though the complainant is not entitled to the discovery.51

$204. Demurrer cannot be good in part and bad in part.

A demurrer cannot be good in part and bad in part.52 If any part of a bill is good, and entitles complainant to either relief or discovery, a demurrer to the whole bill cannot be sustained.53 Where there are several defendants, if they all joir.

48 Mortimer v. Fraser, 2 Mylne & C. 173; Attorney General v. Brown, 1 Swanst. 288; Durdant v. Redman, 1 Vern. 78; Van Orden v. Van Orden (N. J. Eq.) 41 Atl. 671.

49 Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 632; Beall v. Lehman Durr Co., 110 Ala. 446, 18 So. 230; El Modello Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 886, 7 So. 23, 23 Am. St. Rep. 537; Wescott v. Wicks, 72 Ill. 524; Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 208; Darrah v. Boyce, 62 Mich. 480, 29 N. W. 102; Craft v. Thompson, 51 N. H. 536; Durling v. Hammar, 20 N. J. Eq. 220; Le Fort v. Delafield, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 32; Thompson v. Newlin, 38 N. C. 338, 42 Am. Dec. 169; Riddle v. Motley, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 468; Eakin v. Hawkins, 48 W. Va. 364, 37 S. E. 622.

50 Berwind v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 158.

51 Cooper, Eq. Pl. 117; Story, Eq. Pl. § 312; Parker v. Simpson (Mass.) 62 N. E. 401.

52 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 107; Story, Eq. Pl. § 443.

53 Gooch v. Green, 102 Ill. 507; Washington v. Soria, 73 Miss. 665, 19 So. 485; Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 632; Metcalf v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sr. 218; Higinbotham v. Burnet, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 184; Livingston's Ex'rs v. Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 294, 8 Am. Dec. 562; Reading v. Stover, 32 N. J. Eq. 326; Gay v. Skeen, 36 W. Va. 582, 15 S. E. 64; Lowe v. Burke, 79 Ga. 164, 3 S. E. 449; Castleman v. Veitch, 3 Rand. (Va.) 598; Larter v. Canfield, 59 N. J. Eq. 461, 45 Atl. 616.

(241)