Ansell v. Lyle-Samuel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ansell v. Lyle-Samuel

153 A. 371, 9 N.J. Misc. 255, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 436

DecidedFebruary 3, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A. 371 (Ansell v. Lyle-Samuel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ansell v. Lyle-Samuel, 153 A. 371, 9 N.J. Misc. 255, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 436 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion by plaintiffs for a further bill of particulars.

Defendant answered the complaint on October 9th, 1929. On December 27th, 1929, plaintiffs demanded a bill of particulars, which was answered on March 18th, 1930. On April 5th, 1930, plaintiffs filed their reply; on April 24th, 1930, defendant’s rejoinder was filed; and on April 30th, 1930, plaintiffs’ sur-rejoinder was filed. Thereafter, plaintiffs gave notice of a motion before Mr. Justice Parker for a further bill of particulars, which was, on June 30th, 1930, denied, without prejudice to the application to the court in hanc.

The precise question here inolved was decided in Dixon v. Swenson, 101 N. J. L. 22, where it was held “that the filing of the answer was a waiver of the right to have a further bill of particulars.” We conclude that the filing of the plaintiffs’ reply was a waiver of the right to have a further bill of particulars.

The motion is denied, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a motion by plaintiffs for a further bill of particulars.

Defendant answered the complaint on October 9th, 1929. On December 27th, 1929, plaintiffs demanded a bill of particulars, which was answered on March 18th, 1930. On April 5th, 1930, plaintiffs filed their reply; on April 24th, 1930, defendant’s rejoinder was filed; and on April 30th, 1930, plaintiffs’ sur-rejoinder was filed. Thereafter, plaintiffs gave notice of a motion before Mr. Justice Parker for a further bill of particulars, which was, on June 30th, 1930, denied, without prejudice to the application to the court in hanc.

The precise question here inolved was decided in Dixon v. Swenson, 101 N. J. L. 22, where it was held “that the filing of the answer was a waiver of the right to have a further bill of particulars.” We conclude that the filing of the plaintiffs’ reply was a waiver of the right to have a further bill of particulars.

The motion is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A. 371, 9 N.J. Misc. 255, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ansell-v-lyle-samuel-nj-1931.