Definition
A special imparlance is a formal procedural device in common law pleading by which a defendant requests and receives additional time to answer a plaintiff's declaration, while explicitly reserving all objections — both to the writ by which the defendant was summoned and to the declaration itself. The reservation is effected by inserting a saving clause into the imparlance record: "saving to himself all advantages and exceptions, as well to the writ as to the declaration aforesaid." This distinguishes the special imparlance from a general imparlance, which preserves fewer or no such objections.
In practical terms, a defendant who obtained a special imparlance bought time to respond without waiving the right to later challenge defects in the original process or in the plaintiff's pleading on its face.
Common Confusion
Special imparlance is one of three recognized forms of imparlance in classical common law pleading, and the distinctions among them are easy to collapse. A general imparlance reserved no exceptions at all, leaving the defendant exposed to the argument that jurisdictional and pleading objections had been waived. A special imparlance preserved exceptions to both the writ and the declaration. A common imparlance (sometimes called a general special imparlance) preserved exceptions to the declaration but not necessarily to the writ. Researchers encountering the word "imparlance" alone in historical pleading records should not assume which form applied without examining whether a saving clause appears and what its precise scope is.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Special imparlance sits within the broader category of imparlance, which itself divides into three recognized forms:
— General imparlance: Time to answer, no reservations preserved.
— Special imparlance: Time to answer, with exceptions saved as to both the writ and the declaration.
— Common (or qualified general) imparlance: Time to answer, with exceptions saved as to the declaration but with variable treatment of writ objections depending on the authority consulted.
Why It Matters in Research
Special imparlance is a term encountered almost exclusively in pre-reform common law pleading materials — English practice before the Hilary Rules of 1834, and American practice in jurisdictions that retained common law pleading forms before the adoption of code pleading in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Researchers working with early American court records, colonial-era pleading rolls, or English chancery and common law materials will encounter it in formal procedural postures. It rarely, if ever, appears in modern practice.
The critical research trap is this: the presence or absence of the saving clause determines which form of imparlance was granted and therefore which defenses remained open to the defendant. A general imparlance without the clause could be read as a waiver of jurisdictional objections. A special imparlance with the full saving clause left the defendant free to demur, plead in abatement, or challenge the writ at a later stage. When transcribing or analyzing historical pleading records, the precise language of the imparlance entry controls — not the label a later indexer may have applied to it.
Researchers connecting this term to treatise literature should note that Chitty's Pleadings (cited in both Black's and Bouvier's) is the primary authority both dictionaries rely on. The 1819 and later American editions of Chitty provide the most accessible contemporary treatment of the distinctions among imparlance forms.
This term also connects structurally to the Law Mind corpus entries on dilatory pleas, pleas in abatement, and demurrer — because the strategic purpose of the saving clause in a special imparlance was precisely to keep those avenues open.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Bouvier's Law Dictionary are in complete agreement on this term, reproducing what is effectively the same definition and citing the identical authority: 2 Chitty, Pleadings, at page 407. Neither adds independent analysis; both treat the saving clause as the defining feature of the special imparlance.
What the historical dictionaries do not do is explain why the saving clause mattered procedurally — that context must be supplied by treatise sources. Chitty's full treatment of imparlance distinguishes the tactical consequences of each form, and researchers who rely on the dictionary entries alone will understand what a special imparlance is without fully understanding when a defendant would choose it over its alternatives. The dictionaries are also silent on jurisdictional variation: American courts applying common law pleading rules sometimes treated imparlance forms differently from English practice, and local pleading manuals from the relevant jurisdiction should be consulted when the issue is consequential.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Imparlance; Pleading (Common Law Forms); Dilatory Pleas.