BILL OF PARTICULARS. A detailed in formal statement of a plaintiff's cause of ac tion, or of the defendant's set-off. It is an account of the items of the claim, and shows the manner in which they arose.
The plaintiff is required, sometimes under statutory provisions, which vary widely in the different states, to file a bill of particu lars, either in connection with his declara tion ; Corn. v. Giles, 1 Gray (Mass.) 466 ; Moore v. Mauro, 4 Rand. (Va.) 488; Landon v. Sage, 11 Conn. 302 ; Soria v. Bank, 3 How. (Miss.) 46 ; Cregier v. Smyth, 1 Speers (S. C.) 298 ; or subsequently to it, upon request of the other party ; Davis v. Hunt, 2 -Bail. (S. C.) 416; Brown v. Calvert, 4 Dana (Ky.) 219; Watkins v. Brown, 5 Ark. 197; Mc Creary v. Hood, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 316 ; Wil liams v. Sinclair, 3 McLean 289, Fed. Cas. No. 17,737 ; Dennison v. Smith, 1 Cal. 437 ; upon an order of the court, in some cases; Constable v. Hardenbergh, 76 Hun 434, 27 N. Y. Supp. 1022 ; in others, without such order.
He need not give particulars of matters which he does not seek to recover ; 4 Exch. 486 ; nor of payments admitted ; Williams v. Shaw, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 209. See 6 Dowl. & L. 656.
The plaintiff is concluded by the bill when filed; Hall v. Sewell, 9 Gill (Md.) 146 ; and where he gives notice at the trial that he intends to rely only upon the count for an account stated, the notice operates as an amendment of the pleadings and an abandon ment of the bill of particulars ; Waidner v. Pauly, 141 III. 442, 30 N. E. 1025.
The defendant, in giving notice or plead ing set-off, must give a bill of particulars; failing to do which, he will he precluded from giving any evidence in support of it at the trial ; Starkweather v. Kittle, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 20 ; Harding v. Griffin, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 462 ; Rice's Ex'r v. Annatt's Adm'r, 8
Gratt. (Vn.) 557.
The court may order the defendant to file a bill of particulars where he alleges matter by way of counterclaim; Peabody v. Cor tada, 64 Hun 632, 18 N. Y. Supp. 622 ; where the defence is payment it will not be requir ed; Moody v. Belden, 60 Hun 582, 15 N. Y. Supp. 119.
The bill must be as full and specific as the nature of the case admits in respect to all matters ns to which the adverse party ought to have information; 16 M. & W. 773 ; but need not be as special as a count on a special contract. The object is to prevent surprise; Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co, v. Knapp, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 541, 9 L. Ed. 222 ; Smith v. Hicks, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 51; Watkins v. Brown, 5 Ark. 197. If the bill is not sufficiently explicit, application should be made to the court for a more specific one, as the objection cannot be made on the trial; Buckeye Tp. v. Clark, 90 Mich. 432, 51 N. W. 528; Minneapolis Envelope Co. v. Vanstrom, 51 Minn. 512, 53 N. W. 768.
It is not error to refuse to strike out part of a bill of particulars; Lewis v. Godman, 129 Ind. 359, 27 N. E. 563.
According to ancient practice, a defect in a pleading in a divorce suit may in some states, and in England, be cured by filing a bill of particulars; but this will not supply the want of a more definite allegation; 12 P. D. 19 ;. Realf v. Realf, 77 Pa. 31; Har rington v. Harrington, 107 Mass. 329; San ders v. Sanders, 25 Vt. 713. This is not prop er under the Code system, however ; and has been abandoned in the Code states, except New York ; Freeman v. Freeman, 39 Minn. 370, 40 N. W. 167. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 61 N. Y. 398; v. Carpenter, 17 N. Y. Supp. 195.