Delaware Valley Drug Co. v. Kline

• Decision Date: 08 August 1958
• Docket Number: 1958,No. 161,161
• Citation: 51 Del. 242,1 Storey 242,144 A.2d 403
• Parties: , 51 Del. 242 DELAWARE VALLEY DRUG CO., Plaintiff, v. Harry O. KLINE, t/a H. O. Kline Transfer Co., Defendant. Civ. A.
• Court: Delaware Superior Court

Page 403

144 A.2d 403

1 Storey 242, 51 Del. 242

DELAWARE VALLEY DRUG CO., Plaintiff, v. Harry O. KLINE, t/a H. O. Kline Transfer Co., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 161, 1958.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Aug. 8, 1958.

H. Albert Young and Bruce M. Stargatt, Wilmington, for plaintiff.

William Prickett, Jr., Wilmington, for defendant.

STIFTEL, Judge.

Plaintiff filed a complaint wherein it alleged that defendant carrier was responsible for certain loss and breakage of drugs and drug store merchandise delivered to him by plaintiff for transport to the Bergen Drug Co., Hackensack, New Jersey.

Defendant filed a motion under Rule 10(b), Del.C.Ann., to require plaintiff to serve an amended complaint stating, in separate counts, its claim, if more than one is asserted. The defendant, in the alternative, requested a motion for a more definite statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Superior Court Rules, in the event his motion under Rule 10(b) was denied. Defendant also asked that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Counsel for the parties have filed briefs on the subject and an argument on the issues involved was held. At the argument, counsel for the defendants did not press their motions for a more definite statement or to dismiss.

The carrier claims, in an affidavit filed as an exhibit with his brief, that there were four separate deliveries to him by plaintiff during April, 1956. Two deliveries were made on April 6, a delivery was made on April 9 and one one April 10. The foregoing delivery dates must be taken as admitted facts because of plaintiff's failure to answer a request for admissions, under SuperiorCourt Rule 36, within ten days. Lowe v. Hulliger, 7 Terry 331, 83 A.2d 698. Plaintiff further admits, by its failure to answer, that there was a separate bill of lading issued for each shipment. Under the Carmack amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 20(11), the individual shipments were required to be evidenced by different bills of lading. Carrier therefore contends that there were four separate transactions.

Under Rule 10(b), separation of claims into separate counts is mandatory only if more than one claim has been joined in a complaint and separation will facilitate clear presentation of the case. Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet Theatre, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 187. Paragraphing of pleadings, therefore, into separate counts is mandatory only when necessary to facilitate clear presentation. Isenman v. Bandler, D.C., 15 F.R.D. 400; Vance v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, D.C., 13 F.R.D. 109, 2 Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed.), Par. 10.03, p. 2007.

Defendant's argument finds support in Marianao Sugar Trading Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 288. In Marianao, plaintiff delivered a total of 1,750 bags of sugar to the carrier as follows: 750 bags on November 22, 1947; 500 bags on December 3, and 250 bags on December 5 and 8 respectively, under separate bills of lading. Defendant moved the Court to direct plaintiff to serve an amended complaint in which the separate transactions are stated in separate counts pursuant to Rule 10(b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. It was assumed that the shipments moved on separate trains and were delivered to the consignee on different dates. The Court required the plaintiff shipper to file an amended complaint setting forth the separate transactions in separate counts, on the basis that the damage might be different as to each shipment, and the defenses available to defendant may likewise vary in regard to each shipment. But see Turkish State Railways Administration v. Vulcan Iron Works, D.C., 153 F.Supp. 616; James Richardson & Sons v. Conners Marine Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 226.

The language in the Marianao case is helpful in delineating the criteria to be employed. However, a motion to state separately and number must be decided in each case upon the particular pleading under review. The question presented, therefore, is whether separation is desirable in this case in order to facilitate the clear presentation of the matters set forth. Skil-Craft Corporation v. M. Lober & Associates, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 313.

Rule 8 of the Superior Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the characteristics of good pleading. The intent and effect of this rule is to permit a claim to be stated in general terms and to discourage battles over the mere form of statement. United States v. Iroquois Apartments, Inc., D.C., 21 F.R.D. 151; Nagler v. Admiral Corp., 2 Cir., 248 F.2d 319. To the pleadings is normally assigned the task of general notice-giving. The task of narrowing and clarifying the basic issues and ascertaining the facts relative to other issues is the role of the deposition discovery process. Stitt v. Lyon, 9 Terry 365, 103 A.2d 332; Wiener v. Markel, 8 Terry 449, 92 A.2d 706. See, too, Clark, Special Pleading in the 'Big Case', 21 F.R.D. 45-54.

In Buchanan Service, Inc., v. Crew, 11 Terry 22, 122 A.2d 914, 917, this Court stated:

'* * * As was stated in Pfeifer v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., 8 Terry 191, 89 A.2d 154, the discovery devices are designed to fulfill the function of issue formulation as well as the function of fact revelation. Since pleading has been streamlined and restricted to the limited scope of notice-giving, the function of formulating and...