Definition
A cross bill is a bill in equity filed by a defendant in an existing suit against the plaintiff, against other defendants in the same suit, or against both, seeking affirmative relief or resolution of matters arising out of the same transaction or controversy at issue in the original suit. It is a device of equity pleading, not common law procedure, and operates as an independent but derivative action — derivative because it must relate to the subject matter already before the court, and independent because it initiates a new proceeding requiring service, answer, and adjudication in its own right.
The cross bill serves two primary purposes. First, it allows a defendant who has claims against the plaintiff to assert them within the existing litigation rather than initiating a wholly separate suit. Second, it enables a defendant to draw co-defendants into a defensive or offensive posture relative to one another when the rights of multiple parties are intertwined by the original controversy.
A cross bill cannot introduce new matter unrelated to the original suit. Its scope is bounded by the subject matter of the original bill. This restriction is fundamental: a defendant seeking relief on an independent claim must file an original bill, not a cross bill.
---
Common Confusion
CROSS BILL vs. COUNTERCLAIM: These terms are frequently conflated by researchers working across the law-equity divide or reading modern sources that treat them as synonymous. They are not. A cross bill is an equity pleading device requiring formal filing as a bill, service of process, and an independent answer. A counterclaim is a procedural mechanism of code and common law pleading, later systematized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that operates as part of the same pleading document. With the merger of law and equity in most American jurisdictions under the FRCP (1938) and equivalent state reforms, the cross bill as a distinct form largely disappeared, absorbed into the counterclaim and cross-claim mechanisms of Rule 13. Researchers encountering "cross bill" in pre-merger sources should not assume it maps cleanly onto modern counterclaim practice.
CROSS BILL vs. CROSS-CLAIM: A modern cross-claim (Rule 13(g)) runs between co-parties — typically co-defendants. The historical cross bill could serve a similar function when filed against co-defendants, but could also run against the original plaintiff. The directional flexibility of the cross bill was broader than the modern cross-claim in some respects, narrower in others.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Cross bill is an essentially historical term. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in equity reports and treatises predating the merger of law and equity — primarily pre-1938 federal sources and pre-merger state equity practice. After the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the corresponding modernization of state procedural codes, the cross bill as a distinct pleading form was superseded by Rule 13 counterclaims and cross-claims. Reading cross bill decisions with modern procedural assumptions will produce analytical errors.
Several traps exist in historical sources. First, courts were not always consistent about whether a defendant's filing constituted a cross bill proper or an original bill in the nature of a cross bill — a distinction with real procedural consequences for jurisdiction and service. Second, the rule against introducing new matter was strictly enforced in some jurisdictions and loosely policed in others; researchers generalizing across jurisdictions from a single reporter will find apparent conflicts that are really jurisdictional variations. Third, some historical sources use "cross bill" loosely to describe any responsive equity filing, blurring the line between an answer seeking dismissal and a bill seeking affirmative relief. The correct technical meaning requires the defendant to be seeking affirmative relief — if only dismissal is sought, the proper vehicle is the answer alone.
For researchers working in the Law Mind corpus, cross bill connects naturally to equity pleading broadly, to bill of complaint (the original filing it responds to), and to the historical development of the defendant's procedural rights in chancery. It is also relevant background for understanding the Confrontation Clause's cross-examination right (criminal_182), since the terminological overlap between "cross bill" in equity and "cross-examination" in evidence practice occasionally creates surface confusion in older texts, though the two are historically and functionally unrelated.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence and Burrill's Law Dictionary are in close agreement on the core definition: a cross bill is a bill filed by a defendant against the plaintiff (or other parties to the suit) touching the same matter at issue in the original bill. Both trace the form to equity practice, and Burrill draws directly on Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Com. 448) for the foundational proposition that a defendant who wants affirmative relief cannot obtain it through his answer alone — the answer's function is only to secure dismissal, while any claim for relief against the plaintiff requires a separate bill.
Rapalje & Lawrence add the important limitation, sourced to Story's Equity Pleading § 399, that the cross bill should not introduce new matter — a point echoed in the case references they cite (17 How. (U.S.) 591). This restriction is the structural constraint that distinguishes a cross bill from a new original bill.
Neither dictionary addresses the post-merger obsolescence of the form, which is expected given their publication dates. Neither distinguishes clearly between a cross bill against the original plaintiff and one against co-defendants, a distinction that became important in later practice. Researchers should treat both dictionaries as reliable for the classical chancery model and supplement with Story's Equity Pleading and Daniell's Chancery Practice for procedural detail.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Several states retained independent equity courts — and therefore distinct equity pleading rules including the cross bill — well into the twentieth century. Delaware and New Jersey are notable examples. Researchers working in those jurisdictions should not assume that federal merger-era changes automatically displaced the cross bill form at the state level on the same timeline as federal practice.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Confrontation Clause — Right to Cross-Examination (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, criminal_182)
---