Repliant

One who makes a replication. REPLICATION (Lat replicare t to fold back.) The plaintiff’s answer to the defendant’s plea or answer. In Equity. The plaintiff’s avoidance or denial of the answer or defence. Story, Eq. PI. § 877. A general replication is a general denial of the truth of the defendant’s plea or answer, and of the sufficiency of the matter alleged in it to bar the plaintiff’s suit, and an assertion of the truth and sufficiency of the bill. Cooper, Eq. PI. 329, 330. Such a replication is always sufficient to put in issue every material allegation of an answer or amended answer, unless the rules of pleading imperatively require an amendment of the bill; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 168 U. S. 1, 18 Sup. Ct 18, 42 L. Ed. 355. A special replication was one which introduced new matter to avoid the defendant’s tlons have been superseded by the practice of amending bills; 1 How. Intr. 55; 17 Pet. App. 68. A replication must be made use of where the plaintiff intends to introduce evidence, and a subpoena to the defendant to rejoin must be added, unless he will appear gratis; Story, Eq. Pl. § 879. A replication may be filed nunc pro tunc after witnesses have been examined under leave of court; Story, Eq. PI. § 881; Mitf. Eq. PI. by Jeremy 323. If a replication is taken to a plea and issue be found thereon, the bill will not be dismissed, provided the facts contained in the plea are proved; Elgin Wind Power & Pump Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. 215, 12 C. C. A. 578, 21 U. S. App. 542. Under the new equity rules of the United States supreme court a replication is not required. In Admiralty. No replication to the answer to a libel is now allowed; the libellant, under Adm. Rule 51, is considered as denying new facts set up in the answer. At Law. The plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s plea. It contains a statement of matter, consistent with the declaration, which avoids the effect of the defendant’s plea or constitutes a joinder in issue thereon. See Andr. Steph. PI. 151. It is, in general, governed by the plea, whether dilatory or in bar, and most frequently denies it. When the plea concludes to the country, the plaintiff must generally reply by a similiter. See Similiter; Campbell v. Clark, Hcmpst. 67, Fed. Cas. No. 2,355a. When it concludes with a verification, the plaintiff may either conclude the defendant by matter of estoppel, deny the truth of the plea in whole or in part, confess and avoid, the plea, or new assign the cause of action in case of an evasive plea. Its character varies with the form of action and the facts of the case. See 1 Chitty, PI. 519. As to the form of the replication: The title contains the name of the court, and the term of which it is pleaded, and in the margin the names of the plaintiff and defendant. 2 Chitty, PI. 641. The commencement is that part which immediately follows the title, and contains a general denial of the effect of the defendant’s plea. When the plea is to the jurisdiction, it contains a statement that the writ ought not to be quashed, or that the court ought not to be ousted of their jurisdiction. Rastell, Entr. 101. When misnomer is pleaded, no such allegation is required; 1 B. & P. 61. When matter in estoppel is replied, it is, in general, in the words “and the said plaintiff saith that the said defendant.” When the replication denies or confesses and avoids the plea, it contains a precludi non, which see. The body should contain — Matter of estoppel, which should be set ter has been tried upon a particular issue in trespass and found by the jury; 3 East 346; Warner’s Ex’rs v. Bledsoe’s Adm’x, 4 Dana (Ivy.) 73; denial of the truth of the plea, either of the whole plea, which may be by a denial of the fact or facts constituting a single point in express words; Watriss v. Pierce, 36 N. II. 232; Moss v. Hindes, 28 Vt. 279; or by the general replication de injuria, etc., according to the form of action; 8 Co. 67; IB. & P. 79; Allen v. Scott, 13 111. 80; or of a part of the plea, which may be of any material fact; Bradner v. Demick, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 406; and of such only; 37 E. L. & E. 479; Yingling v. Hoppe, 9 Gill (Md.) 310; U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 31, 7 L. Ed. 585; or of matter of right resulting from facts; 1 Saund. 23 a, n. 5; Calvert v. Lowell, 10 Ark. 147; see Traverse; a confession and avoidance; Hoitt v. Holcomb, 23