Schile v. Brokhahne
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an appeal from an order made at Special Term, denying the defendant’s motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish a further and more specific bill of particulars. The action is in tort, being to recover damages for an alleged trespass upon the plaintiff’s premises, by which his stock and fixtures were damaged, and his business greatly injured.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal from an order made at Special Term, denying the defendant’s motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish a further and more specific bill of particulars. The action is in tort, being to recover damages for an alleged trespass upon the plaintiff’s premises, by which his stock and fixtures were damaged, and his business greatly injured. Upon the defendant’s request, the plaintiff furnished the following statement of his claim for the stock injured, for the fixtures damaged, and for the injuries to his business and income, viz : “ Bill of particulars of the amount of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Van Vorst, J.
The power of. the court to order a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim in an action of this character is not questioned. It is sanctioned by the Code, § 158, and by authority (Tilton v. Beecher, 59 N. Y. 176).
In Blackie v. Neilson (6 Bos. 681), it is stated that in an action for the conversion of personal property the defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to require the plaintiff to furnish him with a particular statement or description of the chattels for the value of which the action is brought.
But in the discretion of the court such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tilton v. . BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Humphry v. CottleyouNew York Supreme Court · 1825