Speight Box & Panel Co. v. Lindstrom Tool & Toy Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Speight Box & Panel Co. v. Lindstrom Tool & Toy Co.

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 383, 6 Conn. Supp. 383, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 4, 1938

DocketFile #53946

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 383 (Speight Box & Panel Co. v. Lindstrom Tool & Toy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Speight Box & Panel Co. v. Lindstrom Tool & Toy Co., 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 383, 6 Conn. Supp. 383, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINLAN, J.

Motions for disclosure were intended in part to shorten court actions by subjecting certain kinds of evidence to the examination of one’s opponents before trial. In this special defense certain damage is claimed, and by specific statement, paragraphs “5”’ and “6” of the special defense recite the names of those to whom goods were sold and of those with whom the defendant lost its good reputation. Surely the defendant can support those allegations and if it *384 has records or documents in its possession, an inspection of which will aid the plaintiff in meeting the defense without the loss of the time of the Court, as would be the case if the matter were brought to the plaintiff’s attention for the first time on trial, I believe such an inspection should be granted.

After all, a substantial claim is made as a result of the para' graphs referred to, and in these busy times courts, counsel and parties cannot be subjected to the surprise which compli' cated records sometimes precipitate, and therefore it is my inclination to endeavor to avoid such a situation.

• Motion granted.

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

QUINLAN, J.

Motions for disclosure were intended in part to shorten court actions by subjecting certain kinds of evidence to the examination of one’s opponents before trial. In this special defense certain damage is claimed, and by specific statement, paragraphs “5”’ and “6” of the special defense recite the names of those to whom goods were sold and of those with whom the defendant lost its good reputation. Surely the defendant can support those allegations and if it *384 has records or documents in its possession, an inspection of which will aid the plaintiff in meeting the defense without the loss of the time of the Court, as would be the case if the matter were brought to the plaintiff’s attention for the first time on trial, I believe such an inspection should be granted.

After all, a substantial claim is made as a result of the para' graphs referred to, and in these busy times courts, counsel and parties cannot be subjected to the surprise which compli' cated records sometimes precipitate, and therefore it is my inclination to endeavor to avoid such a situation.

• Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 383, 6 Conn. Supp. 383, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speight-box-panel-co-v-lindstrom-tool-toy-co-connsuperct-1938.