Dean v. Mann
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, the' first a special one upon the memorandum check set out below, the second a special one on a promissory note of the same amount and date, and the third a general count for money lent. The defendant moved for a bill of particulars and the plaintiff filed the following: “Memo. $500. Hartford, July 28, 1854. City Bank of Hartford. Pay to John Bean or order Five Hundred dollars, value received. B. E. Mann.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, the' first a special one upon the memorandum check set out below, the second a special one on a promissory note of the same amount and date, and the third a general count for money lent. The defendant moved for a bill of particulars and the plaintiff filed the following: “Memo. $500. Hartford, July 28, 1854. City Bank of Hartford. Pay to John Bean or order Five Hundred dollars, value received. B. E. Mann.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, which was closed to the court. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the memorandum…
1Opinion of the CourtSanford, J.
The declaration in this case contains three counts. The first is a special count upon a memorandum check drawn by the defendant, the second, upon a promissory note, and the third is the common money count. The defendant demanded a bill of particulars, and the plaintiff gave him a copy of the check described in the first count; and the question before us is, whether, under this bill of particulars, the check recited was admissible evidence in support of any of the counts except the first.
The argument against its admissibility seems to me to proceed upon a misconception of the object and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Waring v. Monroe C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1830
- Landon v. SageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bean v. Camden Lumber & Fuel Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1924