SCANDALOUS MATTER - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

SCANDALOUS MATTERAuthored

The Law Mind • 1031 words

Definition

In equity pleading, scandalous matter refers to allegations in a bill, answer, or other pleading that are unnecessary to the legal claim or defense and that charge misconduct, immorality, or improper conduct against the defendant, a party, or any other person. The defining characteristic is superfluity combined with reproach: the allegation must be both irrelevant to the relief sought and criminating or offensive in nature. Matter that is genuinely relevant to the issues in the case cannot be scandalous, regardless of how offensive its content. Conversely, irrelevant allegations that are merely tedious or verbose, but not reproachful, are impertinent rather than scandalous.

Scandalous matter was subject to a motion to strike — historically called a motion to expunge — by which a court of equity could order the offending language removed from the pleading before the case proceeded.

---

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Scandalous" means causing general public outrage or indignation, or involving disgraceful conduct.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Scandalous" — giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings; exciting reprobation; calling out condemnation; disgraceful to reputation; as, scandalous conduct.

The common meaning of scandalous focuses on the content of the allegation — whether it shocks or disgraces. The legal meaning adds a structural condition: content alone is not enough. In equity pleading, an allegation is only scandalous in the legal sense if it is also unnecessary to the proceedings. Highly inflammatory allegations that are legally relevant must be allowed to stand; only the combination of irrelevance and reproach triggers the doctrine. A researcher reading historical pleadings should not assume that every offensive allegation was vulnerable to expungement.

---

Common Confusion

SCANDALOUS MATTER vs. IMPERTINENT MATTER: These two grounds for striking pleading language are closely related and frequently paired in equity practice, but they are not identical. Impertinent matter is irrelevant to the subject of the suit but carries no particular charge of misconduct — it is simply surplusage. Scandalous matter is a species of impertinent matter that additionally casts aspersions on a person's character or conduct. All scandalous matter is impertinent, but not all impertinent matter is scandalous. Historical sources sometimes use the terms interchangeably, which can mislead researchers into thinking the distinction is merely stylistic. The practical consequence is the same — a motion to strike — but the basis differs, and some courts in equity treated the two as conceptually separate.

SCANDALOUS MATTER vs. LIBEL: Scandalous matter in pleading is a procedural concept concerned with what belongs in a court record, not a substantive tort. It should not be confused with the question of whether a pleading allegation is actionable as defamation. Statements in pleadings generally enjoy absolute privilege in defamation law, which is a separate doctrine.

---

Why It Matters in Research

This term belongs almost entirely to the world of equity pleading and is largely obsolete in modern practice under code and notice pleading systems. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), courts retain authority to strike "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" — preserving the historical vocabulary — but the modern standard and its application differ substantially from equity practice. Researchers working with pre-merger equity records (before the federal merger of law and equity in 1938, and earlier in state courts) will encounter motions to expunge or strike scandalous matter as a routine feature of chancery practice.

The critical research trap is the relevancy rule: historical sources are emphatic that relevant matter cannot be scandalous. This means a researcher reviewing historical equity pleadings cannot infer from the presence of damaging or offensive allegations that they were procedurally vulnerable. The question was always whether those allegations were necessary to the bill or answer. Story's Equity Pleading and Cooper's Equity Pleading are the foundational treatise sources for working through these distinctions in historical context.

Black's Law Dictionary in both its first and second editions defers entirely to its entry on SCANDAL, making the Bouvier entry the more substantive source among the historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus. Researchers should follow the cross-reference to SCANDAL in Black's when using that source.

Jurisdictional variation matters here primarily in the timing of state-level procedural reforms. Some states merged law and equity earlier than the federal system; others retained chancery-style pleading rules well into the twentieth century. State-specific procedural histories will affect when and how scandalous matter doctrine applies to records from those jurisdictions.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's is the only source among the three historical dictionaries to provide a substantive definition rather than a cross-reference. Its formulation — "unnecessary matter criminatory of the defendant or any other person" — is precise and has held up well. The reference to Adams's Equity and Story's Equity Pleading anchors the definition in the core treatise tradition of American equity practice.

Bouvier's statement that "matter which is relevant can never be scandalous" reflects the settled rule in equity. The citation to Story, Equity Pleading § 270 is consistent with Story's treatment of this doctrine. The additional note that "the degree of relevancy is of no account" is a further refinement: courts did not weigh how relevant the matter was; relevancy, once established to any degree, foreclosed the scandalous matter objection entirely.

Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary provide no independent definition, directing readers to the entry for SCANDAL. This cross-reference structure is unhelpful for researchers consulting only the SCANDALOUS MATTER entry and underscores why Bouvier's is the more useful starting point for this term in the historical corpus.

---

Jurisdictional Note

In federal court, Rule 12(f) preserves the term "scandalous matter" but modern courts apply it sparingly and with a strong presumption against striking pleadings. The standard is generally whether the material could cause significant prejudice and has no bearing on the litigation. State courts vary: some follow the federal standard closely; others retain older equity-inflected formulations that more closely track the historical doctrine.

---

SCANDALOUS MATTERmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

In Equity Pleading. Unnecessary matter criminatory of the defendant or any other person, alleged in the bill, answer, or other pleading, or in the interrogatories to or answers by witnesses. Adams, Eq. 306. Matter which is relevant can never be scandalous: Story, Eq. Pl. § 270; 15 Ves. 477; see 42 N. J. Eq. 248, and the degree of relevancy is of no account in determining the question; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 19; 2 Ves. 21; 15 id. 477. Where scandal is alleged, whether in the bill; 2 Ves. 631; answer; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 313; or interrogatories to or answer of witnesses; 2 Y. & C. 445; it will be referred to a master at any time: 2 Ves. 631; and, by leave of court, even upon the application of a stranger to the suit; 6 Ves. 514; 5 Beav. 82; and matter found to be scandalous by him will be expunged; Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 266, 882; 4 Hen. & M. 414; at the cost of counsel introducing it, in some cases; Story, Eq. Pl. § 266. The circuit court has an in- herent power to strike out scandalous matter on their own motion and in the absence of pleading, and may order a bill to be struck from its files and to permit the complainant to file a new bill excluding such matter: 85 Fed. Rep. 55. The presence of scandalous matter in the bill is no excuse for its being in the answer; 19 Me. 214. Parts of an answer, though immaterial as a defence and scan- dalous, will not be suppressed when in- tended to meet charges of bad faith in the bill; 84 Fed. Rep. 379. SCANDALUM MAGNATUM (L. Lat. slander of great men). Words spoken in derogation of a peer, a judge, or other great officer of the realm. 1 Ventr. 60. This was distinct from mere slander in the earlier law, and was considered a more heinous offence. Bull. N. P. 4; Webb's Poll. on Torts 288 b. It depended on early English statutes which after being long obsolete in practice were repealed in 1887. See 3 Bla. Com. 124. SCAVAGE, SCHEVAGE, SCHEW- AGE, or SHEWAGE. A kind of toll or custom, exacted by mayors, sheriffs, etc., of merchant strangers, for wares showed or offered for sale within their liberties. Prohibited by 19 Hen. VII. c. 7. Cowel.