Legal Opinion

King v. Craddock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided September 29, 1937PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order reversed, with ten doUars costs and disbursements, and motion granted unless defendants Craddock serve a biU of particulars in accordance with the demand within ten days of the date of the service of the order, with ten doHars costs. Memorandum: One of the objects of a bill of particulars is to ascertain facts — not as they actuaUy exist, but as the party from whom the biU is sought wiH claim them to be when eaUed upon to prove his cause of action. (Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 159 App. Div. 578, 582; American Condiments Co. v. Audit Co. of N. Y., 164 id. 927, 928.) As plaintiff…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron WorksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Rakov v. GingoldNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Tetreault v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1966
  3. Fizette v. Riverview Plaza, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Schnell v. New York Telephone Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
  5. McLure v. GrecoNew York Supreme Court · 1968

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API