Harrington v. Stillman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Julia E, Harrington, from so much of an order of the' Supreme Court, made at the Eensselaer Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Washington on the 6th day of March, 1907,. as requires that the .complaint be made more definite and certain.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Julia E, Harrington, from so much of an order of the' Supreme Court, made at the Eensselaer Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Washington on the 6th day of March, 1907,. as requires that the .complaint be made more definite and certain. The complaint states a cause of action for negligence .against the defendant in so operating his automobile as to cause' a horse behind which plaintiff was riding to. run away and injure plaintiff. The complaint contains the .following allegations of negligence among others; that the defendant did “…
1Opinion of the Court
Cochrane, J.:
In Dumar v. Witherbee, Sherman & Company (88 App. Div. 181) this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Chase, said: “It is better that the distinction between an order requiring a pleading to be made definite and certain and an order directing a bill of particulars should not be confused. When all that a party to an action really wants is a more'particular statement, of his opponent’s claim for the purpose of narrowing the issues at the trial, or to prevent *661surprise, lie should be required to make an application for a bill of particulars, and not be allowed tó obtain an amended…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dumar v. Witherbee, Sherman & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Rouget v. HaightNew York Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meredith v. Art Metal Construction Co.New York Supreme Court · 1916
- Hooper v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1916