Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

WILLIAM A. TILLIS, SR., v. CALVINE COTTON MILLS, INC, A CORPORATION, AND LEON SALKIND.

Appeal and Error 37: Pleadings 27 — Motion for bill of particulars is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse. G.S. 1-150.

This was a suit to recover damages for breach of contract. After the case had been once partially tried and the plaintiff had been examined adversely under order, the defendants moved for a bill of particulars. The motion was denied in the court's discretion.

From the order denying motion for a bill of particulars the defendants appealed.

PER CURIAM.

It is the uniform holding of this Court that an application for a bill of particulars under G.S. 1-150 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that his ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal, except in case of manifest abuse of discretion. Building Co. v. Jones, 227 N.C. 282, 41 S.E.2d 742; Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369, 14 S.E.2d 30; Tickle v. Hobgood, 212 N.C. 762, 194 S.E. 461; Temple v. Tel. Co., 205 N.C. 441, 171 S.E. 630; Townsend v. Williams, 117 N.C. 330, 23 S.E. 461; McIntosh 361.

On this record no evidence of abuse of discretion is made to appear.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TILLIS v. COTTON MILLS
(Nov 1, 1952)