James Mitchell, Inc. v. Spingarn

Supreme Court of New Jersey

James Mitchell, Inc. v. Spingarn

159 A. 680, 10 N.J. Misc. 510, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 200

DecidedApril 8, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A. 680 (James Mitchell, Inc. v. Spingarn) 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

James Mitchell, Inc. v. Spingarn, 159 A. 680, 10 N.J. Misc. 510, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 200 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Ackekson, S. C. C.

This matter comes before me upon defendants’ motion to strike out the third count of the complaint upon various grounds, among them being the charge that the said count is frivolous, uncertain, vague and indefinite, and multifarious, based upon conclusions and not facts and so framed as to prejudice, embarrass and delay a fair trial.

It is unnecessary to go into this matter further, however, than to say that it is impossible, from reading the criticized pleading to determine whether it is founded upon fraud or breach of contract, and whichever theory is adopted, the pleading is so uncertain, vague, indefinite and obscure as to prejudice, embarrass and delay a fair trial, and will, therefore, be stricken out. The plaintiff may, however, have ten days from April 5th, 1932, in which to file an amended complaint, if it desires so to do.

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

Ackekson, S. C. C.

This matter comes before me upon defendants’ motion to strike out the third count of the complaint upon various grounds, among them being the charge that the said count is frivolous, uncertain, vague and indefinite, and multifarious, based upon conclusions and not facts and so framed as to prejudice, embarrass and delay a fair trial.

It is unnecessary to go into this matter further, however, than to say that it is impossible, from reading the criticized pleading to determine whether it is founded upon fraud or breach of contract, and whichever theory is adopted, the pleading is so uncertain, vague, indefinite and obscure as to prejudice, embarrass and delay a fair trial, and will, therefore, be stricken out. The plaintiff may, however, have ten days from April 5th, 1932, in which to file an amended complaint, if it desires so to do.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A. 680, 10 N.J. Misc. 510, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-mitchell-inc-v-spingarn-nj-1932.