Legal Opinion

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

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 18, 1939Published

1Opinion of the Court

Defendant, pursuant to notice of motion, seeks an order requiring plaintiff to furnish the particulars set forth in its demand which it heretofore served upon plaintiff.

Demands numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 having been withdrawn by defendant, and numbers 3 and 11 having been dealt with and provided for by a stipulation between the parties, there remains but numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 for consideration here.

It is now well settled that the function of a bill of particulars is to secure a discovery of an opponent's case with a greater degree of particularity than is disclosed by his…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Watkins v. CopeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  2. Buermann v. MorrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
  3. Hopper v. GillettSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1928
  4. Paper C., MacHinery Co. v. NewlinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  5. Griffin v. LondriganNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API