O'Brien v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
District Court, W.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
REEVES, Chief Judge.
Heretofore the court has ruled on very-similar interrogatories. The defendant objects to Interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 6,. 7 and 8. These have been examined in the light of the authorities and purpose of Rule No. 33 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
As has been repeatedly stated, the-purpose of interrogatories is to simplify the-issues and is not designed to be argumentative or to call for mere conclusions. Their function is to inform parties in advance of trial, and not to serve as a substitute for trial itself. The courts are at one on these propositions.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Maizie Boling Edgar v. Deborah Finley, a Minor, by Edward Finley, Her Next FriendCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1963
- B. & S. Drilling Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1959
- Uinta Oil Refining Company v. Continental Oil CompanyDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1964
- Baise v. Alewel's, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1983
- Segarra v. Waterman Steamship Corp.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.