Rothaband v. Dickens

W.D. Missouri

Rothaband v. Dickens

15 F.R.D. 192, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4209

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri

DecidedJanuary 2, 1954

DocketNo. 8901

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F.R.D. 192 (Rothaband v. Dickens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rothaband v. Dickens, 15 F.R.D. 192, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4209 (W.D. Mo. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

REEVES, Chief Judge.

In defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, he asks for the following; (1) The exact date when it is claimed the defendant obtained $6,000 from the plaintiff; (2) the circumstances which plaintiff claims constitute fraud; (3) the means employed to obtain the money, and (4) the date when demand was made for the return of the money, and whether same was orally or in writing.

The complaint shows that the alleged fraud was committed “on or about the 4th day of December, 1948.” That is sufficient. The circumstances were that the plaintiff had been declared insane and incapable of managing his [193]*193own affairs, and that the defendant knew, that. Under these circumstances it is" wholly unnecessary to show the means either by which the defendant obtained the money or by which he converted it to his own use. It is unnecessary to set forth in the complaint when plaintiff made demands upon the defendant, even if the law requires him to do so. This information can be obtained by interrogatories.

It follows that the motion for a more definite statement should be and the same hereby is overruled.

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

REEVES, Chief Judge.

In defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, he asks for the following; (1) The exact date when it is claimed the defendant obtained $6,000 from the plaintiff; (2) the circumstances which plaintiff claims constitute fraud; (3) the means employed to obtain the money, and (4) the date when demand was made for the return of the money, and whether same was orally or in writing.

The complaint shows that the alleged fraud was committed “on or about the 4th day of December, 1948.” That is sufficient. The circumstances were that the plaintiff had been declared insane and incapable of managing his [193]*193own affairs, and that the defendant knew, that. Under these circumstances it is" wholly unnecessary to show the means either by which the defendant obtained the money or by which he converted it to his own use. It is unnecessary to set forth in the complaint when plaintiff made demands upon the defendant, even if the law requires him to do so. This information can be obtained by interrogatories.

It follows that the motion for a more definite statement should be and the same hereby is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.R.D. 192, 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothaband-v-dickens-mowd-1954.