
    McDonald v. Barnhill.
    1. Tort: action founded upon: bill of particulars. In an action to recover money alleged to have been fraudulently secreted and kept, and for expense, trouble and inconvenience caused thereby, it was held that the action was founded upon a tort; that section 2713, Code, was not applicable; and that a motion based on said section, to compel plaintiff to attach a bill of particulars to his petition, was properly overruled.
    
      Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.
    
    Monday, June 12.
    The plaintiff in his original petition claims of the defendant five thousand dollars, for alleged carlessness in keeping five thousand dollars entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant’s care, whereby the same was lost. In an amendment to the petition the plaintiff alleges that the defendant fraudulently secreted saidmoney and falsely reported that it had been stolen from him; and that by reason of such wrongful and fraudulent act of defendant, plaintiff had been compelled to employ detectives, attorneys and other assistants, and had been put to trouble, inconvenience and expense, in the sum of three thousand dollars. In the amendment to the petition plaintiff claims judgment in the sum of eight thousand dollars. The defendant moved that the plaintiff be required to attach to his amended petition a bill of particulars, showing the amounts, dates, and the different times at which the money was expended in the employment of detectives, attorneys and other assistants, as set forth in said amended petition. The court overruled the motion. The defendant appeals.
    
      Kemley c& ErcanbraeTi and John McKean, for appellant.
    
      E. Keeler and Sheean & McCarn, for appellee.
   Day, <1.

-The motion was made, and the appellant insists should have been sustained, under section 2713 of the Code, This section provides: “If a pleading is founded on an account, a bill of particulars thereof mrist pe incorporated in or attached to such pleading, verified as the pleading, and deemed a portion thereof, subject to be-made more specific on motion, and shall define and limit the proof', but may be amended as other pleadings. The items of such bill of particulars shall be consecutively numbered.” This section is limited, by its terms, to a pleading founded on an account. An account can exist only when there is a contract, express or implied. The plaintifPs action is not founded upon a contract, express oi implied, but upon a tort. It is no more an action upon an account than would be an action for slander, or for assault and battery. Section 2713 of the Code is not applicable to the present action. If the motion had been simply for a more specific statement as contemplated in section 2720 of the Code, it is possible that it should have been sustained. But it is conceded that the motion is based on section 2713, and it asks for more than section 2720 requires. There was, therefore, no error in overruling it.

Affirmed.  