O-So-Ezy Mop Co. v. Channell Chemical Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
At Raw. Action by the O-So-Ezy Mop Company against the Chan-nell Chemical Company. On motion for a bill of particulars respecting defendant’s counterclaim.
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
[1] It is well settled that a party will not be compelled to furnish the names of its witnesses or its evidence in a bill of particulars. But the very function of a bill of particulars is to apprise the moving party of the ultimate facts upon which the other party proposes to rely without furnishing the mode of proof. The English case of Marriot v. Chamberlain, L. R. 17 Q. B. D. 156, cited by the plaintiff, very clearly sets forth what is proper to require in such cases. Lord Esher there held interrogatories must be answered which inquire as to—
“matters…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Louisiana Farmers' Protective Union, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1940
- Marquette Mfg. Co. v. Oglesby Coal Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1918
- Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Med-Vogue Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1939
- Mulloney v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
- Bodine v. First Nat. BankDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.