Definition
A general imparlance — that is, an imparlance granted on a prayer in which the defendant expressly reserves to himself "all advantages and exceptions whatsoever." The term is a contracted or colloquial form of the fuller procedural term it represents. In English common law pleading, it designated a specific type of continuance that gave a defendant the broadest possible reservation of defenses, distinguishing it from a simple or special imparlance, which carried narrower reservations.
An imparlance generally was a court-granted continuance allowing a defendant time to answer a plaintiff's declaration. The general imparlance — the "lance" — was the most favorable to the defendant because it preserved his right to plead any defense he might later choose, including dilatory pleas. See also: IMPARLANCE.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A lance is a long thrusting weapon carried by cavalry; also used as a verb meaning to pierce or cut open with a sharp instrument, or to move suddenly and quickly.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A weapon of war consisting of a long shaft and steel head carried by horsemen; also a soldier armed with such a weapon; a small iron rod used in shell-casting; an instrument conveying a charge.
The gap here is complete. In common speech — past or present — "lance" refers to a weapon or the act of piercing. In historical English legal pleading, the term is a procedural shorthand for a specific form of imparlance. A researcher encountering "lance" in a pleading context should not read the word in any ordinary sense; it signals a technical reservation of defenses in an early common law action.
Common Confusion
"Lance" is easily confused with imparlance generally, but the distinction matters. A simple imparlance reserved only the right to plead in bar. A special imparlance reserved the right to plead dilatory pleas as well. A general imparlance — the "lance" — reserved all advantages and exceptions whatsoever, giving the defendant the widest possible defensive posture. Using the wrong term when reading or transcribing historical pleadings could cause a researcher to misread the scope of a defendant's reserved rights.
Why It Matters in Research
This term will appear almost exclusively in historical English common law pleading records and the treatises that describe them. It is not a term of modern practice. Researchers working in pre-nineteenth-century English court records, or American records from the colonial and early national period when English pleading forms were in wide use, may encounter "lance" as a shorthand notation or marginal gloss in plea rolls or pleading books.
The primary trap is treating the word as a scribal error, abbreviation of an unrelated term, or literal reference to a weapon. In a pleading context, it is neither. It is a compressed form of "general imparlance" and signals a specific procedural posture.
Because imparlance practice was substantially abolished or displaced in England by the Hilary Rules of 1834 and was rendered obsolete in American federal practice by the Field Code reforms and eventually the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938), "lance" as a legal term is confined to sources predating those reforms. It will not appear in modern practice materials.
Researchers using the Law Mind corpus should cross-reference entries on imparlance, pleading, and dilatory pleas to reconstruct the full procedural context. The Chitty on Pleading citation (2 Chit. Pl. 408) appearing in both Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence is the canonical treatise reference and provides the most detailed contemporary explanation.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence are in complete agreement, offering nearly identical definitions and citing the same authority: 2 Chitty's Pleading, p. 408. This convergence suggests both sources drew from a shared tradition rather than independent analysis, and that the term had a settled, narrow meaning in the pleading literature.
Neither dictionary provides historical depth beyond the definition itself. Neither traces the term's origin, explains when it fell out of use, or distinguishes American from English practice. The entry in Rapalje & Lawrence notably runs together with a separate definition of "General Statute" — a formatting artifact suggesting the "lance" entry was treated as a minor cross-reference rather than a standalone headword.
What the historical sources collectively miss: any explanation of how "lance" relates etymologically or formally to "imparlance," any case law applying the distinction, and any guidance on regional American variation. Researchers should treat these dictionary entries as confirmatory rather than exhaustive.
Jurisdictional Note
The term is rooted in English common law pleading and was carried into American practice wherever English pleading forms were adopted. Its practical significance varied by state depending on how quickly each jurisdiction moved away from common law pleading forms toward code pleading. In jurisdictions that adopted the Field Code early (New York, 1848; many others through the 1850s–1870s), the term became obsolete sooner than in jurisdictions that retained common law pleading longer.