The motion to strike out paragraph 3 of the complaint was allowed in part and presented on the first appeal. It is true, several elements of damages are alleged but this does not constitute as many separate and distinct causes of action. As we understand it, but a single cause of action is set out in the complaint hence the first prayer of the motion was properly denied. 737.īut considering the several grounds of the motion in the order named: Doubtless the plaintiffs made their specifications as broad as they could, because they were aware that, in filing a bill of particulars, they would be restricted in their proof "to the items therein set down." Gruber v. It is not perceived that any harm has come to the defendant from the court's ruling, or that any injury is likely to result therefrom. Motion denied, and the defendant again appeals. Third, to strike out certain portions of the bill of particulars. Second, to strike out paragraph 3 of the complaint Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed their bill of particulars, and the defendant again lodged its motion to require the plaintiffs:įirst to file an amended complaint and allege separately each separate cause of action relied upon From this ruling, the defendant appealed because the court "refused to strike from the complaint the irrelevant or redundant matter set forth therein." The ruling was not disturbed on appeal. The motion was allowed in part and the plaintiffs required to file a bill of particulars. The complaint alleges several elements of damage, a number of which the defendant asked to have stricken out as irrelevant and immaterial. From an order denying its motion to require plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and allege separately each separate cause of action relied upon, and to strike out paragraph three of the complaint, and to strike out certain portions of the bill of particulars, defendant appeals.Ĭivil action to recover compensation for the partial taking of plaintiffs' lands, or damages for an alleged nuisance arising out of the construction and maintenance of a sewerage disposal plant Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County Sink, Judge.Īction by Tom Pemberton and others against the City of Greensboro.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |