Prince v. Takash
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action for goods sold and delivered, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County where the plaintiff was required (Cable, J.') to amend his bill of particulars, and the cause was thereafter erased from the. docket (Hubbard, J.) for want of jurisdiction, from which ruling the plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHamersley, J.
This action is brought to recover the price of goods sold to the defendant. In commencing the action the plaintiff used the form of complaint denominated, in the rules under the Practice Act, “ common counts,” and authorized for that purpose only. After the action was returned, the plaintiff filed a bill of particulars for the purpose of restating his cause of action so that it should be stated as required by the Practice Act. Until this is done, either by a bill of particulars or other amendment or substituted complaint, there is no complaint for the purpose of taking a default or rendition…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grether v. KlockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1872
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Apuzzo v. HoerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Archambeault v. JamelleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Dombroski v. AbramsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Holmquist v. SpinelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.