
    Loren Peterson v. Samuel J. Tilden.
    
      Labor debts — Bill of particulars.
    
    A declaration against a stockholder upon a labor claim against the corporation must show the nature of the work and when it was done, to establish the defendant’s liability.
    A bill of particulars that has been properly demanded is not waived by pleading or noticing the case for trial.
    
      Where a plaintiff refuses to comply with a proper demand for a bill of particulars, an objection to his evidence is properly sustained.
    Error to Marquette.
    Submitted June 16.
    Decided June 23.
    Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      F. O. Clark for plaintiff in error.
    If defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars he can move to compel it to be given, or for nonsuit: 1 Green’s Prac. 510; Circ. Court Rule 38; Brewster v. Sackett 1 Cow. 572 ; May v. Richardson 4 Cow. 56; Stanley v. Millard 4 Hill 50.
    
      W. P. Mealy for defendant in error.
   Marston, C. J.

The declaration in this case did not sufficiently apprise the defendant of the claim made, either as to the time the work and labor were performed or the nature and character thereof, so as to show clearly that the defendant as a stockholder would be liable therefor. The defendant, having properly demanded a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s demand, did not waive his right thereto by pleading to the declaration or noticing the case for trial. The plaintiff refusing to comply with the demand made, and insisting upon the right to a trial, the court rightly sustained the objection to the evidence offered.

There is no error in the record and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  