Tilton v. Beecher

New York Court of Appeals · 1875 · Evidence

2 Abbott's Repts. at 49 (N.Y. 1875)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencebill of particularsdiscretionappealabilityerror of lawCode of Procedure section 158Code of Procedure section 160adultery allegations

Facts

The plaintiff's complaint charged that the defendant committed adultery or criminal intercourse with the plaintiff's wife on October 10, 1868, and on divers other days and times before the action commenced in August 1874. The defendant denied the acts and sought an order requiring the plaintiff to state in writing the particular times and places at which he intended to prove them, asserting that the information was necessary to prepare his defense. The Special Term denied the motion on the ground that the court had no power to grant it and that the defendant's remedy, if any, was under section 160 of the Code to make the complaint more definite and certain. The order was effectively affirmed at General Term because the two judges reviewing it were divided.

Issue

Did the lower court have power to order the plaintiff to furnish particulars of the times and places of the alleged acts, rather than treating section 160 as the exclusive remedy? If so, was denial of the motion based on supposed lack of power a reversible error of law?

Rule

Section 160 applies only when a pleading is so indefinite or uncertain that the precise nature of the charge or defense is not apparent; it does not govern requests for details such as time and place when the nature of the charge is already clear. Under section 158, and under the court's general authority preserved by practice, a court may in all cases order a bill of particulars whenever justice requires that a party be apprised with greater specificity of the matters to be tried. When a lower court denies such an application because it mistakenly believes it lacks power, the appellate court may reverse and remit for an unembarrassed exercise of discretion on the merits.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Nora Ellison sued Damian Cross for libel, alleging that he defamed her in a series of public remarks made "on various occasions during 2022 and 2023" accusing her of falsifying research data. Damian denies making actionable statements and moves for an order requiring Nora to identify the approximate dates, locations, and occasions on which she intends to prove the remarks were made.

The trial judge denies the motion solely because the complaint already states the nature of the claim and therefore, in the judge's view, the court has no power to compel further detail. On appeal, what is the best result?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a court has power to order a bill of particulars in all cases when justice may require greater specificity than pleading rules demand. A motion to make a pleading definite and certain is aimed at situations where the precise nature of the charge is not apparent. Here, libel is clearly alleged; the defendant seeks particulars of time, place, and occasions. Denial based on the mistaken belief that no such power exists is an error of law requiring reversal and remittal for an unembarrassed exercise of discretion, not an automatic grant.