Affirmed. See, also, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, 597. Elmer H. Groefsema, of Detroit, Mich., and Daniel I. Rosenthal, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellant.
Under Rule 9(g), when items of special damage are claimed, they should be specifically stated. See Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. National Carbon Co., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 454, 455; Stork v. Townsend, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390. Defendant's motion will be granted.
At the same time the court treated a portion of the motion to strike as a motion for a bill of particulars. Stork v. Townsend et al., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390. On October 15, 1940, plaintiff filed a document entitled ‘ Amendment to Bill of Particulars.’
Rule 1.11(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In Stork v. Townsend, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 390, a motion for a bill of particulars was considered to be the appropriate method of attacking inadequate claims for special damages. Applying these rules to the situation before us we are of the view that if the complaint states a claim upon which at least nominal damages may be awarded, then a motion to dismiss such a complaint should not be sustained.