Hanauer Ex Rel. Wogahn v. Siegel

29 F. Supp. 329, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2310
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedSeptember 25, 1939
Docket47325
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 29 F. Supp. 329 (Hanauer Ex Rel. Wogahn v. Siegel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hanauer Ex Rel. Wogahn v. Siegel, 29 F. Supp. 329, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2310 (N.D. Ill. 1939).

Opinion

HOLLY, District Judge.

Plaintiff has propounded certain interrogatories which defendant has failed to answer averring that it is not informed and therefore cannot answer the questions. Plaintiff because of failure of defendant to answer is asking for a summary judgment. I am of the opinion that where the plaintiff makes a request for admissions under Rule 36, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the defendant must answer even though he has no personal knowledge if the means of information are within his power. It is not sufficient that he does not know if he can obtain knowledge. Nor does it matter that the plaintiff is acquainted with the facts as to which admission is sought. The purpose of the rule is to expedite trial, and to relieve parties of the cost of proving facts which will not be disputed oh the trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.

Defendant, therefore, must in this case either admit or deny under oath the facts as- to which plaintiff has requested admissions or show that he has no information on the subject and that it is impossible for him to secure the necessary information. - This should be done within fifteen days from the filing of this memorandum and if defendant makes default plaintiff will be entitled to judgment.

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

Related

O'meara-Sterling v. Mitchell
299 F.2d 401 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
Driver v. Gindy Manufacturing Corp.
24 F.R.D. 473 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1959)
Moumdjis v. Panamanian SS The Ionian Trader
157 F. Supp. 319 (E.D. Virginia, 1957)
Kissinger v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 49 OF CLAY COUNTY
77 N.W.2d 767 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1956)
Jackson v. Kotzebue Oil Sales
17 F.R.D. 204 (D. Alaska, 1955)
Jones v. Boyd Truck Lines, Inc.
11 F.R.D. 67 (W.D. Missouri, 1951)
Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.
92 F. Supp. 118 (S.D. Iowa, 1950)
Weyerhaeuser Sales Co. v. Holden
203 P.2d 685 (Washington Supreme Court, 1949)
Strasser v. Fascination Candy Co.
7 F.R.D. 267 (N.D. Illinois, 1945)
Masten v. Masten
165 S.W.2d 225 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Smyth v. Kaufman
114 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 F. Supp. 329, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanauer-ex-rel-wogahn-v-siegel-ilnd-1939.