Definition
In common law pleading, a rebutter is the defendant's answer of fact to the plaintiff's surrejoinder. It is the third pleading on the defendant's side in the extended sequence of common law pleadings, following the plea, rejoinder, and surrejoinder. The rebutter responds to new matter introduced by the plaintiff's surrejoinder, and is itself governed by the same rules that apply to the rejoinder — it must answer the substance of what preceded it and introduce only new defensive matter, not merely deny what was already denied.
In older real property law, rebutter carried a broader meaning: to repel or bar a claim. When a person sought to recover land against one who held a warranty from the claimant or the claimant's ancestor, the warrantor's title could "rebut" the claim — that is, operate as a bar or estoppel against it. In this sense, a rebutter was functionally synonymous with a bar or estoppel running from a warranty deed.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To apply butter to something again.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The answer of a defendant in matter of fact to a plaintiff's surrejoinder.
The Wiktionary entry reflects the modern colloquial reading of the word as a compound of "re-" and "butter," which has no connection to the legal term. Interestingly, Webster's 1913 gives only the legal definition, suggesting the legal sense was the primary recognized meaning as late as the early twentieth century. Researchers encountering "rebutter" in older texts should not be misled by the modern colloquial reading; the legal term derives from the Law French reboter, meaning to thrust back or repel.
Common Confusion
Rebutter is sometimes conflated with surrebutter. The sequence matters: the surrejoinder comes from the plaintiff, the rebutter answers it from the defendant, and the surrebutter is the plaintiff's reply to the rebutter. Rebutter is also occasionally confused with rejoinder, which is the defendant's first answer of fact after the plaintiff's replication. The rejoinder comes earlier in the sequence; the rebutter comes two steps later.
Why It Matters in Research
Rebutter is a relic of extended common law pleading practice, a system that collapsed in England with the Hilary Rules of 1834 and in American jurisdictions with the adoption of code pleading in the latter half of the nineteenth century. By the time most modern practitioners encounter the word, it has no procedural currency. Researchers working in pre-reform case law or treatises — particularly anything before the mid-1800s — will encounter the term in live procedural context. After code pleading reform, references to rebutter are almost entirely taxonomic or historical.
The real property meaning of rebutter as bar or estoppel is older and less familiar to most researchers. Burrill flags this usage explicitly, noting that "in the old books" the term carried the general sense of bar or estoppel. This second meaning surfaces in medieval and early modern property texts, including Brooke's Abridgment and Coke on Littleton, and can create confusion when a researcher trained on the pleading definition encounters it in a property context. These are two distinct concepts that share a word.
The pleading sequence is a common research trap. Sources disagree on numbering because different authorities count from different starting points. Steph. Pl. and Bl. Comm. agree that the rebutter is the third pleading on the defendant's side, but researchers must track carefully: declaration (plaintiff) → plea (defendant) → replication (plaintiff) → rejoinder (defendant) → surrejoinder (plaintiff) → rebutter (defendant) → surrebutter (plaintiff). Anything past rejoinder was rare at common law and is noted as obsolete in English Chancery practice even in the historical sources.
For corpus research in Law Mind, rebutter will appear most densely in pleading treatises and pre-1850 case law. Connections to the real property meaning will surface in older abridgments and property digests under headings like "Barre," "Estoppel," and "Warranty."
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources agree on the core pleading definition without significant divergence. Black's (1st and 2nd Ed.), Bouvier, and Burrill all converge on the same formulation drawn from Stephen's Pleading and Blackstone's Commentaries. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the useful note that even under newer pleading systems, the name remains applicable to the corresponding pleading — an acknowledgment that the concept, if not the procedure, persisted past code reform.
Burrill is the most complete of the historical sources, noting both the pleading definition and the older property-law meaning as bar or estoppel, with citations to Brooke, Cowell, Coke, and Sheppard's Touchstone. Bouvier and Black's omit the property meaning entirely, which is a significant gap for researchers working with early property texts. Rapalje & Lawrence briefly notes the real property sense — "to rebut was to repel or bar a claim" — but does not develop it at length.
No historical source treats rebutter as a term with current procedural application at the time of writing; all treat it as either historical or rare.
Jurisdictional Note
Rebutter as a live procedural term is obsolete in all American jurisdictions that have adopted code pleading or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It retains relevance only in historical legal analysis. Some states abolished extended pleading stages earlier than others; researchers should identify the applicable pleading reform date for the jurisdiction under study before assuming rebutter is purely historical in a given source.