Brady v. Hauenstein

3 Citing cases

  1. Tierney v. Tierney

    179 A. 314 (Ch. Div. 1935)   Cited 1 times

    A bill of particulars has the twofold effect of informing the defendant, with relation to the details of the plaintiff's case, with a view of preparation of a proper pleading in reply to the complaint, and also limiting the plaintiff's proof on the trial as well as apprising the defendant what is proposed to be set up, to the end that the defendant may prepare a proper defense. Hopper v. Gillett, 140 A. 17, 6 N. J. Misc. 63, 65, appeal dismissed 105 N. J. Law, 150, 143 A. 448 (quoted in Brady v. Hauenstein, 148 A. 182, 7 N. J. Misc. 1081; Buermann v. Morris, 152 A. 341, 8 N. J. Misc. 811; Billy v. Tatarsky, 165 A. 413, 11 N. J. Misc. 184. "The principle which guides the court in granting or refusing applications of this nature is, that the party who avers matters which he must prove on the trial, shall so far apprise his opponent concerning them that he may intelligently prepare his pleadings and defenses.

  2. Hooper v. William P. Laytham Sons Co., Inc.

    6 A.2d 204 (N.J. 1939)

    While it may not be employed as a means of compelling a disclosure of an adversary's evidence, nevertheless a bill of particulars may be used for the purpose of requiring the party to whom it is directed to give information relative to his case not only for the purpose of enabling his opponent to prepare a proper pleading in reply, but also for the purpose of limiting his own proof at the trial, as well as apprising his adversary of what is proposed to be set up, to the end that the latter may properly prepare his defense thereto. Watkins v. Cope, 84 N.J. Law 143;86 Atl. Rep. 545; Hopper v. Gillett, 140 Atl. Rep. 17; 6 N.J.Mis. R. 63; 105 N.J. Law 150; 143 Atl. Rep. 448; Paper andTextile Machinery Co. v. Newlin, 101 N.J. Eq. 115;137 Atl. Rep. 314; Brady v. Hauenstein, 7 N.J. Mis. R. 1081;148 Atl. Rep. 182; Buermann v. Morris, 8 N.J. Mis. R. 811;152 Atl. Rep. 341; Griffin v. Londrigan, 106 N.J. Eq. 247; 150 Atl. Rep. 328;Magie v. Magie, 108 N.J. Eq. 483; 155 Atl. Rep. 613. When considered in the light of these principles, enunciated, as they are, in the furtherance of the due administration of justice, the particulars sought by:

  3. Hooper v. William P. Laytham & Sons Co., Inc.

    125 N.J. Eq. 454 (Ch. Div. 1939)

    While it may not be employed as a means of compelling a disclosure of an adversary's evidence, nevertheless a bill of particulars may be used for the purpose of requiring the party to whom it is directed to give information relative to his case not only for the purpose of enabling his opponent to prepare a proper pleading in reply, but also for the purpose of limiting his own proof at the trial, as well as apprising his adversary of what is proposed to be set up, to the end that the latter may properly prepare his defense thereto. Watkins v. Cope, 84 N. T.L. 143, 86 A. 545; Hopper v. Gillett, 140 A. 17, 6 N.J.Misc. 63, Hopper v. Gillet, 105 N.J.L. 150, 143 A. 448; Paper & Textile Machinery Co. v. Newlin 101 N.J.Eq. 115, 137 A. 314; Brady v. Hauenstein, 148 A. 182, 7 N.J.Misc. 1081; Buermann v. Morris, 152 A. 341, 8 N.J.Misc. 811; Griffin v. Londrigan, 106 N.J.Eq. 247, 150 A. 328; Magie et al. v. Magie et al., 108 N.J. Eq. 483, 155 A. 613. When considered in the light of these principles, enunciated, as they are, in the furtherance of the due administration of justice, the particulars sought by: