Case Name: Bell Langrell vs. James D. Wright, administrator of George W. Moore, deceased
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1910-02-28
Citations: 1 Boyce 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bell Langrell vs. James D. Wright, administrator of George W. Moore, deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Bell Langrell vs. James D. Wright, administrator of George W. Moore, deceased.
Bill of Particulars—Sufficiency—Admission of Counsel.
1. A bill of particulars for “nursing and care of the deceased, and work and labor in attendance upon him, and for cooking and washing, from January first, 1906 to January first 1908—$500.00,” it being admitted by Counsel for plaintiff that the agreement was for a lump sum for the services rendered, is sufficiently specific.
(February 28, 1910.)
Judges Boyce and Hastings sitting.
Richard R. Kenney for plaintiff.
A. B. Magee for defendant.
Superior Court, Kent County,
February Term, 1910.
See 2 Boyce.
Summons Case (No. 1, October Term, 1909). The following bill of particulars was filed:
“Clayton, Delaware, January 28, 1910.
The Estate of George W. Moore, '
to Belle Langrell, Dr.
To nursing and care of the deceased, and work and labor in attendance upon him, and for cooking and washing, from January first, 1906, to January first, 1908..................$500.00.
“Richard R. Kenney,
“Atty. for pl’ff.”
Mr. Magee, for defendant, objected to the above bill of particulars on the ground that same was not sufficiently specific; that the defendant was not apprised of the price per week charged, or of any contract as to a lump sum to be paid for said services.
Mr. Kenney, for plaintiff, stated that the service was a continuous one and that as a matter of fact the agreement which the plaintiff would prove at the trial, was for a lump sum for services rendered, mentioned in the bill of particulars.

Opinion:
Boyce, J.:
We think the bill of particulars, under the facts of this case, is sufficient.