Repugnancy

In Contracts. A disagreement or inconsistency between two or more clauses of the same instrument. In deeds, and other instruments inter vivos, the earlier clause prevails, if the inconsistency be not so great as to avoid the instrument for uncertainty; 2 C. B. 830; 13 M. & W. 534. In wills, the latter clause prevails, under the same exceptions; Co. Litt 112 b; 2 My. & K. 149; 1 Jarm. Wills 411. See, however, 18 Ch. Div. 17. Repugnancy in a condition renders it void; Stockton v. Turner, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 192; 6 Ch. Div. 549. In Pleading. An inconsistency or disagreement between the statements of material facts in a declaration or other pleading: as, where certain timber was said to be for the completion of a house already built; 1 Salk. 213. Repugnancy of immaterial facts, or of redundant and unnecessary matter, if it does not contradict material allegations, will not, in general, vitiate the pleadings; Co. Litt. 303 &; 1 Chitty, PI. 233. See Steph. PI. 378; Gould, PI. § 172.

in pleading, is where the material facts stated in a declaration or other pleading, are inconsistent one with another; for example, where in an action of trespass, the plaintiffdeclared for taking and carrying away certain timber, lying ina certain place, for the completion of a house then lately built; this declaration was considered bad, for repugnancy; for the timber could not be for the building of a house already built. 1 Salk. 213. Repugnancy of immaterial facts, and what is merely redundant, and which need not have been put into the sentence, and contradicting what was before alleged, will not in general, vitiate the pleading. Gilb. C. P. 131; Co. Litt. 303 b; 10 East, 142; 1 Chit. Pl. 233. See Lawes, Pl. 64; Steph. Pl. 378; Com. Dig. Abatement, (H 6); 1 Vin. Ab. 36; 19 Ib. 45; 1 Bac. Ab. 161, 647; 5 Bac. Ab. 414; Vin. Ab. h. t.