CHAPTER XV. OF THE ANSWER. 1. Drawing and engrossing the | 10. Exceptions insufficiently Answer, 90. Answered, 109. Oath, when, 91. 2. The Answer is put in upon 11. Answer Excepted to,when to be deemed sufficient, 110. 3. Supplemental Answer, 96. 4. Insufficiency, 98. 5. Exceptions to the Answer for Insufficiency, 103. 6. Order of Reference, 106. 7. The Master's Report, 107. | 8. Arguing the Exceptions, 109. 9. Further Answer, 109. SECTION 1. Drawing and engrossing the Answer. THE answer is commonly drawn, but must be signed and settled by counsel; (Brown v. Bruce, 2 Mer. 1); except it be taken in the country by commission, in which case the signature of counsel is not necessary. (Ib.; and see Simes v. Smith, 4 Madd. 366). It is then engrossed on parchment, and signed by the defendant. The engrossment must of course be legible, although, in one case, the Court refused a motion to have it taken off the file on an affidavit that it was legible when sworn. (Attorney-General v. Mayor of Fowey, 3 Swanst. 184). Wife. truth; (Lee v. Ryder, 6 Madd. 294); idiots and lunatics, found such by inquisition, answer by the committee of their estate. Where a hus- Husband and band and wife are defendants they answer jointly, until an order has been obtained for the wife to answer separately, as the wife becomes a substantial party to the suit only from the time of the order, that she may answer separately; and, under the old practice, was entitled to all the orders for time to answer; and is not precluded by any previous order obtained by her husband for that purpose on behalf of himself and her; (Jackson v. Haworth, 1 Sim. & Stu. 161); and consequently is now entitled to the full time from the date of the order. Hence, in a suit against husband and wife in respect of a demand against her as executrix, where the husband appears for himself and wife, and is afterwards in contempt for want of answer, an attachment will not go against the wife, till an order has been obtained for her to answer separately; and she must have notice of the motion for that order. (Bunyan v. Mortimer, 6 Madd. 278). A defendant, in custody for want of the answer of himself and his wife, cannot clear his contempt by putting in the separate answer of himself only. (Gee v. Cottle, 3 My. & Cr. 180). An attachment having issued against a married man for want of answer of himself and wife, the sheriff returned cepi corpus, but that the husband was insane and therefore incapable of answering, the Court ordered that the wife should answer separately, and that the senior Six Clerk not toward the cause Infants. Idiots, &c. Master is closed, the parties go to a Master's house, Infants answer by guardian; (Jongsma v. Pfiel, 9 Ves. 357; Lushington v. Sewell, 6 Madd. 28); in a recent case, a guardian ad litem to an infant defendant, although resident out of the jurisdiction, was appointed on motion, upon proof of respectability, and that she had no interest adverse to that of the infant. (Smith v. Palmer, 3 Beav. 10). If a female guardian marries, it is a matter of course to appoint a new guardian. (Anon., 8 Sim. 346). Persons of mental imbecility also answer by guardian, and if the fact of mental imbecility be denied, a reference will be directed to inquire into its Wife. truth; (Lee v. Ryder, 6 Madd. 294); idiots and lunatics, found such by inquisition, answer by the committee of their estate. Where a hus- Husband and band and wife are defendants they answer jointly, until an order has been obtained for the wife to answer separately, as the wife becomes a substantial party to the suit only from the time of the order, that she may answer separately; and, under the old practice, was entitled to all the orders for time to answer; and is not precluded by any previous order obtained by her husband for that purpose on behalf of himself and her; (Jackson v. Haworth, 1 Sim. & Stu. 161); and consequently is now entitled to the full time from the date of the order. Hence, in a suit against husband and wife in respect of a demand against her as executrix, where the husband appears for himself and wife, and is afterwards in contempt for want of answer, an attachment will not go against the wife, till an order has been obtained for her to answer separately; and she must have notice of the motion for that order. (Bunyan v. Mortimer, 6 Madd. 278). A defendant, in custody for want of the answer of himself and his wife, cannot clear his contempt by putting in the separate answer of himself only. (Gee v. Cottle, 3 My. & Cr. 180). An attachment having issued against a married man for want of answer of himself and wife, the sheriff returned cepi corpus, but that the husband was insane and therefore incapable of answering, the Court ordered that the wife should answer separately, and that the senior Six Clerk not toward the cause should be appointed guardian to the husband to put in his answer. (Estcourt v. Ewington, 9 Sim. 252). In Garey v. Whittingham, (1 Sim. & Stu. 163), where the husband had put in a separate answer, in which he stated that his wife did not live with him, and that he had no influence over her, and the wife had put in no answer,—the husband being in custody under an attachment for want of the wife's answer, on motion to discharge this attachment, and that the plaintiff might have leave to sue out an attachment against the wife, Sir John Leach said"A wife can never answer separately unless an • order is obtained for that purpose. A husband 6 may obtain that order where he cannot influence 'his wife to answer; and where the husband is ' abroad and not amenable to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff may obtain the order. But I doubt 6 whether, in either case, a notice of the application 'ought not to be given to the wife. I likewise doubt 'whether the husband can answer separately before there is an order that the wife shall put in a sepa'rate answer. The practice, however, seems to be · to receive his answer. And yet, if it were not a case in which an order might be obtained for the 'wife to answer separately, she must answer jointly; ' and then his answer must be taken off the file in ‹ order that she may join in it. His separate answer 'will be put in only where the wife will not in fact 'join; and the receiving of his answer before he 'obtains the order upon his wife, does in truth for'ward the proceedings. I shall order the husband, |