HENRY C. GROVES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. H. MCLAURIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in an assumpsit case, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a more detailed bill of particulars.
No, the trial court's denial of the motion for a more detailed bill of particulars was not reversible error.
“A bill of particulars is not a part of the declaration; and the allowance or refusal of a detailed bill of particulars rests in the discretion of the trial court .and will not be reversed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for decisions regarding bills of particulars.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants in error sued the plaintiff in error (Groves) in assumpsit for the price of articles listed in an account. Groves moved for a more detailed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The defendants in error brought assumpsit against Groves in the common counts for the price of several articles stated in an account filed with the declaration, aggregating $329.00. There is no bill of exceptions, but the transcript shows that motions for a more detailed bill of particulars stating the price of each article, were denied. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and on writ of error the defendant below insists that the denial of a motion for a more detailed bill of particulars was reversible error. A bill of particulars is not a part of the declaration; and the allowance or refusal of a detailed bill of particulars rests in the discretion of the trial court .and will not be reversed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Wilson v. Fridenberg, 22 Fla. 114; Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46, 34 South. Rep. 287; Spencer v. Fort Orange Paper Co., 74 App. Div. (N. Y.) 74, 77 N. Y. S. 251; Neal v. Phoenix Lumber Co., 64 Wash. 523, 117 Pac. Rep. 267; Wood’s Adm’x v. Southern R. Co., 104 Va. 650, 52 S. E. Rep. 371. Even if the denial of motions for a more detailed bill of particulars can be reviewed on writ of error without a bill of exceptions, there is nothing in the transcript to indicate that the trial court abused a sound judicial discretion in denying a motion for a more détailed bill of particulars.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hockér, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1936)…necessary even if such counts were common counts. Columbia County v. Branch, 31 Fla. 62, 12 South. Rep. 650.' The motion is addressed to a sound discretion of the trial court. Wilkie v. Roberts, 91 Fla. 1064, 109 South. Rep 22; Groves v. McLaurin, 66 Fla. 230, 63 South. Rep. 439. Cromwell renewed his motion on the 26th of May for a bill of particulars and the day following applied to the court for a rehearing of its order. Counsel for the parties agreed that defendants need not plead to the declaration…
-
Davant v. Weeks, 78 Fla. 175 (Fla. 1919)…tached to the declaration forms no part of the declaration unless made so by apt words. See Poppell v. Culpepper, 56 Fla. 515, 47 South. Rep. 351; Hooker v. Gallagher, 6 Fla. 351; Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 South. Rep. 992; Groves v. McLaurin, 66 Fla. 230, 63 South. Rep. 439. The plaintiff in error contends that in considering this demurrer two questions arise: 1. Did the parties signing the note intend to make it an instrument under seal; 2. Is P. L. Weeks a joint maker? These are questions that…
-
Palm Court Corp. v. Smith, 103 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)…with this order, the court below made a further order dismissing the cause as to the common counts. The right to require a better bill of particulars rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court. 3 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 524; Groves v. McLaurin, 66 Fla. 230, 63 So. 439. It has not been made to appear that the court below abused its discretion in ordering a better bill of particulars to be filed and dismissing the cause as to the common counts for failure to comply with the order. The court below erre…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mathis v. State, 45 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1903)
- Wilson v. Phœbe Fridenberg, 22 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1886)