Case Name: People ex rel. Sylvester T. Everett v. Marquette Circuit Judge
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1878-10-22
Citations: 39 Mich. 437
Docket Number: 
Parties: People ex rel. Sylvester T. Everett v. Marquette Circuit Judge.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
People ex rel. Sylvester T. Everett v. Marquette Circuit Judge.
Bill of particulars in action of tort.
A Ml of particulars cannot be required, in an action on the ease for consequential injuries.
Mandamus to vacate order for bill of particulars.
Submitted and granted October 22.
Relator brought trespass against the sheriff and others for the seizure of a quantity of pig iron which he had' contracted to deliver, upon a special agreement, at Chicago, but was prevented from ’doing so by its detention, and had to sell it at a loss. He set forth that at the date of seizure he could have shipped it to market for a dollar a ton, but that by reason of its detention he had to pay two dollars; and that in order to get possession of it, he had to execute an indemnity bond to the sheriff. Defendants demanded a bill of particulars of his demand for which action was brought, and particularly the terms of the special agreement mentioned in his declaration, and
“the name or names of the persons with whom said contract was made and where he or they reside, and the price to be paid therefor, when made, amount to be delivered, when and where. The price at which said iron was sold and to whom and where sold and where such person resides. By what means or what person, boat or firm could said iron have been shipped at one dollar per ton. The price paid per ton for shipping said iron and to whom or to what boat. What expense and amount of same plaintiff was put to on account of said iron being seized and detained. In what manner he was hindered from selling said iron, who offered to purchase the same while it was detained and was any effort made to sell the same during such time. If so, to whom, and where does such person reside, and the particulars and items of all other special damage suffered by plaintiff and alleged under said declaration and for which recovery is sought.”
Plaintiff having neglected to furnish the bill of particulars, defendant moved that he be non-suited, and on hearing the motion, the respondent ordered that within twenty days plaintiff furnish to defendants’ attorneys an account in writing of the terms and dates of all contracts and agreements on which his claim for damages depends, the names and residences of the parties thereto, and which, if any, of said agreements are in writing. Mandamus is asked to compel the vacation of this order.
Dan H. Ball for the writ.

Opinion:
The court
held that a bill of particulars could not be required in such cases, and granted the mandamus.