
    Clark & Tillinghast vs. the Saginaw City Bank and Norman Little.
    A defendant may plead to one part of the bill, and answer to another part; but these defences must clearly refer to separate and distinct parts of the bill.
    When the answer and plea are to the same parts of the bill, the answer overrules the plea.
    December 2.
    The bill in this case is filed for the collection of certain bills and drafts of the Saginaw city bank; for a discovery, and the removal of Norman Little, the receiver heretofore appointed, and prays for the appointment of a new receiver, &c.
    The defendants plead to all the discovery prayed in the bill, and to all the relief prayed, except as to the dividend to be received from the receiver, and answer to nearly all the matters charged in the bill.
    The case was set down for agreement on the plea, under the provision of rule 32.
    E. C. Seaman, for complainants.
    The answer overrules the plea. Mit. PL, 319, 320; Story’s Eq. PL, 505, 506.
    S. G. Watson, for defendants.
   The Chancellor.

The defendants may plead to one part of the bill, and answer to another part; but these defences must clearly refer to separate and distinct parts of the bill. If the defendants have answered to any part of the bill to which they have pleaded, the answer overrules the pleai Mit. PL, 319, 320.

The plea in this case, extends to all the discovery, and nearly all the relief prayed. In fact, the plea and answer appear to apply to the same parts of, and each to nearly the whole bill; the answer overrules the plea.

Plea overruled. 
      
       See James vs. Sadgrove, 1 Sim. & Stu., 4, 1 Cond. Eq. Ch. Rep., 3; Morrison vs. Turnour, 18 Ves., 175; Bowas vs. Carter, 4 Ves., 91; Bayley vs. Adams, 6 Ves., 586; Watkins vs. Stone, 2 Sim. & Stu., 560; 1 Cond. Eq. Ch. Rep., 588.
     