Definition
In legal usage, impertinent describes matter included in a pleading, interrogatory, or other court proceeding that does not belong there — content that is superfluous, irrelevant, or outside the scope of what the proceeding properly requires.
In equity pleading specifically, impertinent matter is any allegation or statement that has no bearing on the cause before the court: facts not necessary to frame the issue, narrative that does not advance or answer the claim, or material included in an interrogatory that goes beyond what the opposing party is legitimately required to answer. Such matter was subject to being struck on motion.
At law (common law pleading), the term was applied to matter not necessary to constitute the cause of action or ground of defense. It constitutes surplusage — present in the pleading but legally inert, adding nothing to the claim or defense and potentially confusing the issue.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Rude, insolent, or disrespectful in manner; also, not pertaining or relevant to something.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not pertinent or bearing on the matter at hand; irrelevant or inapplicable. Also, offending against propriety or good breeding; prone to rude or uncivil words or actions.
The gap here is significant and runs in opposite directions. In ordinary modern English, impertinent almost exclusively means rude or insolent — a social failing. In legal usage, past and present, impertinent means irrelevant or out of place — a pleading defect with no social dimension whatsoever. A researcher encountering the word in a legal document should suppress the social meaning entirely. Conversely, a period legal document using impertinent is saying nothing about anyone's manners.
Common Confusion
Impertinent is frequently conflated with scandalous in the context of motions to strike pleadings. The two are distinct grounds. Impertinent matter is irrelevant — it simply does not belong, regardless of its character. Scandalous matter may be relevant but is nonetheless improper because it is inflammatory, degrading, or needlessly offensive. Modern federal practice (Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) lists both as independent grounds for striking material from a pleading, preserving the traditional distinction. Researchers working in equity records should not assume that either term implies the other.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap with impertinent is the word's evolution in ordinary English. A 19th-century equity order striking "impertinent" matter from a bill or answer is a procedural ruling about relevance and scope, not a commentary on the litigant's conduct. Misreading it as the modern social sense will fundamentally distort the record.
In equity practice, impertinence was a recognized defect with defined procedural consequences. A bill or answer containing impertinent matter could be referred to a master to have that matter expunged, and costs could follow. This mechanism appears throughout chancery records and equity treatises of the 18th and 19th centuries. Researchers working in those records should understand that a reference to the master "for impertinence" is a routine procedural step, not a dramatic rebuke.
The distinction between equity and common law usage matters for corpus navigation. In equity, the term applied broadly to pleadings, interrogatories, and other proceedings. At common law, it operated more narrowly as a synonym for surplusage in the pleading itself. Sources from different procedural traditions may use the word similarly but with slightly different procedural implications.
Under modern federal practice, the concept survives in Rule 12(f), which authorizes courts to strike "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from a pleading. The word impertinent thus carries direct continuity from its equity origins into contemporary federal civil procedure, making historical sources on the term directly relevant to modern practice questions.
Researchers should also note that Rapalje & Lawrence's entry under this headword is misdirected — it defines IMPARTIALLY rather than IMPERTINENT, a clear editorial error in that source. Do not rely on Rapalje & Lawrence for this term.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (both editions) and Burrill converge on the same core definition: matter that does not belong to a pleading, interrogatory, or proceeding; out of place, superfluous, irrelevant. Black's 2nd edition adds the common law dimension explicitly, noting its operation as surplusage, and appends case references. Burrill cross-references the related entry for Impertinence, where additional development appears.
Bouvier's entry under this headword is entirely misdirected — the text provided concerns matrimonial impediments under canon law and has no connection to impertinent as a pleading term. This appears to be a digitization or editorial sequencing error. Researchers should not treat Bouvier as a source for this term without locating the correct entry independently.
The historical dictionaries, where on point, are consistent and reliable for the equity definition. None of them address the modern Rule 12(f) context, which is expected given their vintage. The evolution from equity-specific doctrine to codified federal procedural ground is a gap that historical dictionary sources cannot fill and that requires consultation of procedural treatises and annotated rules.
Jurisdictional Note
The term's most precise historical meaning is anchored in equity jurisdiction. States that maintained separate courts of equity will have the richest documentary record. In merged jurisdictions and under the Federal Rules, the equity lineage continues through Rule 12(f) and its state analogs, but procedural consequences and standards for striking impertinent matter vary by court.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Pleadings
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Surplusage
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Equity Practice and Procedure