Definition
A special plea in bar is a formal pleading in which the defendant, rather than simply denying the plaintiff's allegations, affirmatively introduces new matter that, if proven, would defeat the plaintiff's claim entirely and bar recovery. The "new matter" is a legal ground — such as the expiration of the limitations period, release, accord and satisfaction, res judicata, or former acquittal — that operates independently of whether the plaintiff's underlying allegations are true. Even if the plaintiff's claim is factually valid on its face, the special plea in bar asserts a reason why the law will not permit the action to proceed.
The term belongs to the formal system of common law pleading, where precision in the form and classification of pleadings carried procedural and substantive consequences.
---
Common Confusion
SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR vs. GENERAL ISSUE vs. PLEA IN ABATEMENT
These three pleading forms are frequently collapsed in modern discussions but were technically distinct under common law procedure.
The general issue — pleaded as "not guilty" in criminal cases or "nil debet" (he owes nothing) in debt — simply denied the plaintiff's material allegations without introducing any affirmative ground for defeat. It put the plaintiff to proof of every element but added nothing new.
The special plea in bar, by contrast, admitted (at least arguendo) that the plaintiff might be able to prove what was alleged, but asserted a separate legal reason why judgment should nonetheless be denied — new matter that barred the action altogether.
A plea in abatement differed from both: it did not seek to defeat the claim permanently on the merits but only to suspend or dismiss the present proceeding on a technical or procedural ground (wrong court, defective writ, nonjoinder of parties). The critical distinction is finality — a plea in bar, whether general or special, aimed at permanent defeat of the claim; a plea in abatement did not.
Confusing these forms in historical research can lead to misreading whether a court's ruling extinguished a right or merely sent the plaintiff back to refile.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in common law pleading materials — whether in English chancery and common law records, early American state court practice, or treatise literature from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries — will encounter this term frequently and need to read it precisely.
Several navigational points matter:
First, the special plea in bar was the procedural vehicle for defenses we now think of as affirmative defenses. Modern civil procedure (under code pleading and the Federal Rules) collapsed the old pleading taxonomy into a unified answer with affirmative defenses. What was once a special plea in bar is now simply listed as an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c) or its state equivalents. Searching nineteenth-century materials for doctrines like limitations, res judicata, or release will require comfort with the older form.
Second, because the special plea in bar introduced "new matter," it triggered a distinct set of pleading rules. The opposing party could respond by demurrer (arguing the new matter was legally insufficient even if true), by traverse (denying the new matter factually), or in some cases by replication introducing yet further new matter. The sequence of pleading exchanges — plea, replication, rejoinder, surrejoinder — could extend several rounds, and researchers must track which party bore which burden at each stage.
Third, the distinction between special plea in bar and plea in abatement matters for understanding whether a ruling was on the merits. Courts and commentators of the period were precise about this, and a ruling sustaining a special plea in bar had res judicata consequences that a ruling on a plea in abatement did not.
Fourth, the transition away from this system was uneven. Some American jurisdictions retained formal common law pleading long after others had adopted the Field Code or similar reforms. Research in pre-twentieth-century state court materials requires knowing where a given jurisdiction stood in this transition.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines the special plea in bar by reference to Gould's treatise on pleading: it "advances new matter" and differs from the general issue in that "the latter denies some material allegation, but never advances new matter." This is a reliable and succinct statement of the core distinction, though it is compressed.
The reference to Gould (James Gould, A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions, first published in 1832) situates this definition within the American treatise tradition that codified and rationalized English common law pleading rules for domestic practice. Gould was a primary authority in American courts during the classical pleading era, and his chapter and section references in Black's serve as genuine research leads into that literature.
The historical dictionary entry does not, however, illuminate the full taxonomy of pleas in bar. Pleas in bar divided into two categories: the general issue and special pleas. Special pleas themselves could be founded on a wide range of substantive grounds — limitations, release, payment, judgment recovered, autrefois acquit, autrefois convict — and the procedural rules governing each had variations. Researchers should not expect the dictionary entry alone to map that terrain; treatise literature (Gould, Stephen's Principles of Pleading, Chitty on Pleading) is essential for the full picture.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The special plea in bar is a concept of English common law pleading exported to American colonies and early states. Its formal use declined sharply in American jurisdictions as code pleading spread after 1848 and was effectively replaced by affirmative defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) and equivalent state rules. English procedure underwent parallel transformation under the Judicature Acts of the 1870s. Researchers working in pre-reform materials in any common law jurisdiction will encounter the term; those working in post-reform materials generally will not, though courts occasionally use the phrase in historical or analytical contexts.
---