Porter v. Dziura

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Porter v. Dziura

179 A.2d 281, 104 N.H. 89, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 23

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedMarch 22, 1962

Docket4972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 179 A.2d 281 (Porter v. Dziura) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. Dziura, 179 A.2d 281, 104 N.H. 89, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 23 (N.H. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

*90 Wheeler, J.

It is true as argued by the defendant that the plaintiff’s declaration involves “many different aspects” of the alleged relationship between the parties. Contrary to the usual argument advanced in such cases it is urged that it says too much rather than too little.

Pleadings should be stated with sufficient conciseness and clarity so that the “case may be rightly understood.” RSA 514:8. “The defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which the plaintiffs are proceeding and the redress they claim as a result of defendant’s actions.” Morency v. Plourde, 96 N. H. 344, 346. The plaintiff’s declaration fails to meet this standard. Certain of his “Claims” state no separate cause of action and the declaration is so prolix that it does not inform the defendant of the theory on which the plaintiff is proceeding. Morency v. Plourde, supra.

While the defendant was not entitled to have the action abated, the plaintiff should be required to amend to state more precisely the grounds upon which he seeks to recover.

Remanded.

All concurred.

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

*90 Wheeler, J.

It is true as argued by the defendant that the plaintiff’s declaration involves “many different aspects” of the alleged relationship between the parties. Contrary to the usual argument advanced in such cases it is urged that it says too much rather than too little.

Pleadings should be stated with sufficient conciseness and clarity so that the “case may be rightly understood.” RSA 514:8. “The defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which the plaintiffs are proceeding and the redress they claim as a result of defendant’s actions.” Morency v. Plourde, 96 N. H. 344, 346. The plaintiff’s declaration fails to meet this standard. Certain of his “Claims” state no separate cause of action and the declaration is so prolix that it does not inform the defendant of the theory on which the plaintiff is proceeding. Morency v. Plourde, supra.

While the defendant was not entitled to have the action abated, the plaintiff should be required to amend to state more precisely the grounds upon which he seeks to recover.

Remanded.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.2d 281, 104 N.H. 89, 1962 N.H. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-dziura-nh-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack