Legal Definitions - general special imparlance

The term general special imparlance refers to a historical legal procedure, primarily used in common law systems, where a defendant requested and was granted additional time to respond to a plaintiff'slawsuit.

More specifically, an "imparlance" was a pause in legal proceedings, allowing the parties to negotiate a settlement or for the defendant to prepare their defense. A general special imparlance was a particular type of this delay. It was granted when a defendant needed time to prepare a dilatory plea – a type of legal argument that does not address the core facts or merits of the case, but instead raises a procedural objection to the lawsuit itself. Examples of dilatory pleas include challenging the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the wrong party has been sued, or claiming that another lawsuit on the same matter is already ongoing.

The "special" aspect of this imparlance meant that the defendant was restricted to filing only such a dilatory plea during the extended time, rather than a plea that responded to the substance of the plaintiff's claims. This procedural tool allowed defendants to challenge the proper form or venue of a lawsuit before being compelled to defend against the actual allegations.

Here are some examples illustrating how a general special imparlance might have been used:

• Challenging Jurisdiction: Imagine a small manufacturing company, "Widgets Inc.," based solely in Ohio, is unexpectedly sued in a California court by a disgruntled customer. Widgets Inc. believes the California court has no legal authority (jurisdiction) over them because they have no business operations or presence in California. If this procedure were still in use, Widgets Inc. would request a general special imparlance. This would grant them extra time specifically to prepare and file a motion arguing that the California court lacks jurisdiction, rather than immediately having to defend against the customer's claims about product defects.
• Incorrect Party Identification: A landlord, Mr. Henderson, sues "John Smith" for unpaid rent, believing John Smith is the tenant. However, the actual tenant is "Jonathan Smith," John's brother, who has a similar name but a different legal identity. John Smith, upon receiving the lawsuit, would seek a general special imparlance. This would give him the necessary time to prepare a procedural defense, such as a plea of misnomer or improper party, arguing that he is not the correct defendant, without having to immediately address whether rent was actually paid.
• Prior Action Pending: A construction company, "BuildFast Co.," is sued by a client for breach of contract in a state court. BuildFast Co. realizes that the client had already filed an identical lawsuit against them for the same breach in a federal court a month prior. BuildFast Co. could request a general special imparlance. This would provide them with time to prepare a dilatory plea arguing that the state court case should be dismissed or stayed because there is already another action pending between the same parties on the same subject matter in a different court.