Fleurot v. Durand
New York Supreme Court
Henry, for the defendant, moved for judgment as in case of non pros, on the ground that the plaintiff had not delivered the particulars of his demand, pursuant to the order made and served on him, by the defendant, for that purpose.
1Per curiam
There appears to be no established rule of practice in this respect. As the particulars of the plaintiff’s may be deemed as part of his declaration, we think it the proper course for the defendant to move for judgment, as in case of non pros, for want of the bill of particulars, as he might have done for want of a declaration. We, therefore, grant the rule that the plaintiff furnish to the defendant the particulars of his demand, in twenty days, or that a judgment of non pros be entered.
Rule granted.
2Cited by7 opinions
- McKenzie v. . HarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Dwight v. . Germania Life Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Van Syckel v. O'HearnNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1892
- Williams v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Brewster v. SackettNew York Supreme Court · 1823
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.