Case ID: nc_236/html/0533-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM A. TILLIS, SR., v. CALVINE COTTON MILLS, INC, a Corporation, and LEON SALKIND.
    (Filed 19 November, 1952.)
    Appeal and Error § 37: Pleadings § 27—
    Motion for bill of particulars is addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial judge, and bis ruling thereon is not reviewable in tbe absence of abuse. G.S. 1-150.
    Appeal by defendants from Moore, J., April Term, 1952, of MeckleN-btjrg.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      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.
    
      C. T. Carswell and B. Irvin Boyle fox plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      Clayton & Sanders for defendants, appellants.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

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.