
    Thomas J. Kelley vs. James J. Ryder et als.
    
    An answer to a bill in equity which does not confess and avoid or expressly deny the allegations of the bill so as to show what are the real issues involved in the suit, may be excepted to for insufficiency, although an oath to the answer has been waived.
    Bill in Equity to dissolve a partnership. An oath to the answer was waived. On exceptions to the answer.
    
      John F. Lonsdale & Bernard J. Padien, for complainant.
    
      George J. West, for respondents.
    
      January 12, 1894.
   Per Ouriam.

The rules of equity-pleading require that an answer should confess and avoid or expressly deny the allegations of the bill. Place v. The City of Providence, 12 R. I. 1. The answer of the respondents James J. Eyder and Catherine E. Eyder does not, in the particulars excepted to, comply with this requirement. Instead of expressly denying the allegations of the bill, it sets up matters of defence which deny the allegations of the bill only by implication. Prom such an answer it is difficult, if not practically impossible, to determine what are the real issues involved in the suit.

Exceptions sustained.  