Opinion
August Term, 1898.
Present — Barrett, Rumsey, O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on opinion of Kellogg, J., in the court below.
The following is the opinion of Kellogg, J.:
It seems to me that the allegations of this complaint are so general that it might be regarded for the most part as a statement of conclusions rather than a concise statement of facts. No answer can be made to such a complaint except a general denial. If the facts constituting the cause of action were stated, some other answer might be necessary to enable the defendants to make proof in support of their proper defense. This is the peril the careful pleader seeks to avoid, and to avoid it he must know the specific wrongdoing he is charged with. To accuse one of having been guilty of wrongdoing in a general way will not do. The specific act or acts should be stated. The plaintiff knows what specific act or acts of defendants constitute his cause of action, The defendants cannot know what the plaintiff has in mind until the complaint informs him, or, if the complaint fails, the recourse to a bill of particulars is necessary. To say a defendant must answer blindly and take the chance of missing a defense he might have alleged, if he had been duly informed by the complaint, is unreasonable. I think the defendants are entitled to the bill of particulars called for in their written demand, and such a bill is directed to be served within ten days. The motion is granted, with costs.