Brown v. Calvert

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Brown v. Calvert

34 Ky. 219, 4 Dana 219, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 58

DecidedJune 14, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Ky. 219 (Brown v. Calvert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Calvert, 34 Ky. 219, 4 Dana 219, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 58 (Ky. Ct. App. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Ewing

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

This is an action of assumpsit, brought by Calvert against Brown, with general counts in the declaration. And the only question is—did the Court err in overruling the motion of the defendant for a bill of particulars, made before the trial commenced?

Whenever the form of the declaration is so general, as not to apprize the defendant of the nature, character and extent of the claim set up against him, he may demand a bill of particulars. Such a bill is not only proper, by way of limiting the plaintiff in his proof, to the specific demands claimed by him, but is essential to enable the defendant to prepare fully for his defence, and to guard him against surprise. The right is not only sanctioned by authority, but by reason and propriety. 3 Starkie on Ev. 1054. It was therefore erroneous to overrule the defendant’s motion.

Wherefore, it is considered by the Court, that the judgr ment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be granted.

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

Judge Ewing

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

This is an action of assumpsit, brought by Calvert against Brown, with general counts in the declaration. And the only question is—did the Court err in overruling the motion of the defendant for a bill of particulars, made before the trial commenced?

Whenever the form of the declaration is so general, as not to apprize the defendant of the nature, character and extent of the claim set up against him, he may demand a bill of particulars. Such a bill is not only proper, by way of limiting the plaintiff in his proof, to the specific demands claimed by him, but is essential to enable the defendant to prepare fully for his defence, and to guard him against surprise. The right is not only sanctioned by authority, but by reason and propriety. 3 Starkie on Ev. 1054. It was therefore erroneous to overrule the defendant’s motion.

Wherefore, it is considered by the Court, that the judgr ment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the cause remanded, that a new trial may be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ky. 219, 4 Dana 219, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-calvert-kyctapp-1836.