he is not obliged to set out the account (8). Where in an answer of an executor to a bill containing the usual interrogatories for an account of the personal estate and what it sold for &c. every particular article and the price at which it sold was set forth in a schedule, it was held impertinent (9). If pertinence and impertinence be so mixed that they cannot be separated, the whole is impertinent. Needless prolixity is itself impertinence although the matter should be relevant; all that is required in an answer is, that the defendant should fairly and pertinently set forth so much of the instrument or document he may be asked respecting, as is sufficient to satisfy the object and inquiry of the plaintiff's charge and interrogatory, but he must not wantonly incumber the record beyond that (10). But in Clissold v. Powell (11), Sir John Leach, Vice Chancellor held, that if an instrument be required by the bill to be set forth, it is not impertinent to set forth the whole of it, for if a defendant takes on himself to state only the substantial part of the instrument, and an exception is taken because he has not set forth the substantial part, the court would be unable to decide what was the substantial part. Where a discovery is sought of a correspondence, if the defendants set forth extracts of letters and swear that those are the only parts of the correspondence upon the subject, it is sufficient (12). When a short description of letters is required, it is impertinent to state the short contents of the letters (13). If the answer misnames the plaintiff it is not considered as an answer, and will be ordered to be taken off the file (14). So if the answer purports to be an answer to the bill of five complainants only, when there are six, it will be ordered to be taken off the file ( 15 ). (8) Cooper R. 215. (9) Beaumont v. Beaumont, 5 Madd. 51. See also Norway v. Rowe, 1 Mer. 355; Parker v. Fairlie, 1 Sim. & Stu. 295; S. C. on appeal, 1 Turn. & Russ. 362. (10) King v. Teale, 7 Pri. 280; in this case the answer was held impertinent in setting out at too full length a warrant of attorney to confess judgment and the defeazance, although the statement thereof in the bill was very incorrect; and see Slack v. Evans, before Lord Chancellor Eldon, cited 7 Pri. 278; Beames's Orders in Ch. p. 70 & 165. (11) Cited as an Anon. Ca. 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 355. (12) Campbell v. French, 1 Austr. 58. (13) v. De Tastet, cited 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 276. (14) Griffith v. Wood, 11 Ves. 62. (15) Cope v. Parry, 1 Madd. R. 83. So for other mistakes in the title; Pieters v. Thompson, Coop. R. 249; White v. Godbold, 1 Madd. R. 269. A defendant will be held to an offer or submission in his answer, though the circumstances of the case were varied from what they were at the time the answer was put in (16). If the matter of an answer be material and relevant to the justice of the case, whatever be the nature of it, it is not to be considered scandalous (17). A trustee or incumbrancer interested only in part, (so also an heir at law,) always answers so much of the bill as applies to him, and need not answer the rest of it (18). A defendant is not bound to answer interrogatories not supported by substantive allegations in the bill; but if he does answer, and the plaintiff replies to the answer, it is put in issue properly (19). * I. Usual answer of an Attorney-General (20). (For the title, see form No. 2. p. 1.) This defendant answering saith that he is a stranger to the several matters and things in the said complainant's said bill of complaint contained; And this defendant further saith that he claims such rights and interests under &c. [the will of R. S. deceased in the said bill stated] for and on behalf of his Majesty as this honorable court shall be of opinion that his Majesty is justly entitled to. (16) Holford v. Burnell, 1 Vern. 448; sed quære, if the bill is afterwards amended; see 1 Ves. jun. 209 a, 2d edit.; 6 Ves. 555; 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 370. (17) Coffin v. Cooper, G Ves. 514; Smith v. Reynolds, Mos. 70. (18) Cooper R. 215. (19) Attorney-General v. Whorwood, 1Ves. sen. 534, 8. (20) The Attorney-General may, in his discretion, put in an answer, or refuse to answer; but if he refuses to put in any answer, the bill may be taken pro confesso. No process of contempt can go against the Attorney-General, nor can exceptions be taken to an answer put in by him. Where the Attorney-General puts in the common answer he may afterwards move to withdraw it and put in a new answer; 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 335; 1 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 401. The introductory words of course and the general conclusion of an answer (see sections 2 and 4, antea,) are unnecessary in the answer of an Attorney-General; although in the forms of answers by the AttorneyGeneral, inserted in the former edition of this work, the commencement of those clauses is inserted. II. Answer of the Attorney-General where the plaintiff was alleged to be illegitimate. (For the title, see form No. 2. p. 1.) This defendant (21) saving and reserving to himself on behalf of his Majesty now and at all times &c., answering saith that he is a stranger to all and singular the matters and things in the said complainant's bill of complaint contained, and therefore leaves the said complainant to make such proof thereof as he shall be able; And this defendant further answering saith that he insists on behalf of his Majesty on all such right title and interest in the premises in the said bill of complaint mentioned as his said Majesty shall appear to have therein, and this defendant humbly submits the same to the judgment order and direction of this honorable court, and also humbly prays that this honorable court will take care of his Majesty's right and interest in the premises. And this defendant denies &c. Without that &c. J. M. III. The answer of the Attorney-General where a testator died without leaving an heir at law. (For the title, see form No. 2. p. 1.) This defendant (22) now &c. answering saith it may be true for any thing this defendant knows to the contrary that I. T. A. in the complainant's bill named was seised in fee simple of such real estates as therein mentioned, and that he died at or about the time in the said bill in that behalf mentioned without leaving an heir at law, but whether the said I. T. A. duly made and published such or any other last will and testament as in the said bill mentioned, or whether if he so did he the said I.T. A. was of sound mind memory and understanding at the time of making and publishing the same, or whether the same was duly executed and attested &c., or whether the said complainant is so or otherwise entitled to the said estates as in the said bill in that behalf mentioned, this defendant (21) See note (20), antea, p. 10. 11 being an entire stranger to the several matters aforesaid cannot set forth, but leaves the said complainant to such proof thereof as he shall be advised to produce; And this defendant on behalf of his Majesty insists that if the said I. T. A. died without leaving any heir at law and without duly executing his will and testament in writing in such manner as by law is required for devising real estates, in that case his Majesty has become entitled by escheat to all the estates of which the said I. T. A. died seised. W. A. IV. Answer of the Attorney-General insisting on a title by escheat in the crown, in case a testator died without leaving an heir at law, and without having made a will valid to pass real estate. (For the title, see form No. 3. p. 1.) 4 This defendant (23) saving &c. answereth and saith that he is a stranger to all and singular the matters and things in the complainant's said bill of complaint contained, and submitteth the same to the judgment of this honorable court; but insists on his Majesty's behalf that in case it shall appear that Sir D. D. late of &c. deceased in the complainant's bill named, died without leaving any person or persons a subject or subjects of Great Britain his heir or heirs at law, and without having duly made and published his will and testament in the presence of three credible witnesses and with all the solemnities of law requisite to devise or pass real estate at the time of his being of sound and disposing mind memory and understanding, that then and in such case his Majesty is well entitled by escheat to all and singular the freehold messuages lands tenements and hereditaments of which the said Sir D. D. died seised or entitled in fee simple; And therefore this defendant prays that this court will take care of such right and interest if any as shall appear to be in his Majesty. Without that &c. (23) See note (20), antea, p. 10. *V. Answer of the trustees and executors under the will of a testator who had contracted for the purchase of an estate, to a bill for specific performance; the defendants insisting that the original agreement had been abandoned on account of the defects of title, and the delay which had taken place, and also of the deterioration in value of the estate; but also insisting (in case the opinion of the court should be against them,) upon the benefit of a subsequent agreement for an abatement in price according to the terms expressed in a letter written by the purchaser. The joint and several answer of T. S. and A. M. two of the defendants to the original bill of complaint and bill of revivor of J. N. widow and T. N. complainants, and the joint and several answer of the same defendants to the bill of revivor of the said T. N. the whether the estates as in the such interest therein as in the bill stated; These defendants &c. [see form No. 2. antea, p. 3.] answer and Do not know say they do not know and cannot set forth as to their belief or plaintiffs were otherwise whether the said complainants in the said original bill seised of such named or either of them were or was at any time seised possessed bill mentioned, of or well entitled to such freehold and leasehold estates as in but believe that they were in the said bill mentioned for such estates as therein mentioned, or possession therewhat estates or interests in particular they or either or them had of, and claimed or has therein respectively, but these defendants believe that said complainants in the original bill or one of them were or was in possession of such estates and claimed such interest therein as are mentioned in the said bill; And these defendants say they believe it to be true that the said J.N. deceased and the said complainant T. N. were desirous of selling the said freehold and leasehold estates, [and that they offered the same for sale subject to certain particulars &c., (but for their greater certainty, &c. refer thereto,) and that they were put up to sale but not sold, &c., and that the said J. N. and T. N. authorized R. W. to sell the estates as Believe that they were desirous to sell, and that D. M. the defendants' testator agreed for with the plainpurchase the tiff's agent to by private contract ;] And that D. M. in the said bill named and now deceased applied to and agreed with the said R. W. the agent of the said J. N. and the said complainant T. N. the purchase of the said estate and premises at or for the price or sum of £8000, but whether or not subject to such terms and same for £8000, stipulations as in the said bill stated, or what were the terms such agreement but the terms of |