Hague v. Northern Hotel Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the City Court of the city of New York as requires her to ■ furnish a bill of particulars as to whether she claims that consideration passed to the defendant for endorsing the -note in suit; and if she does so claim, then full details as to the character "of such consideration, the time when it was paid, etc.
1Opinion of the CourtBijur, J.
The complaint alleges that the note, made to the order of the defendant, was 'duly indorsed by it and delivered to the plaintiff before maturity. As plaintiff need, prima facie, prove no more to entitle her to recover (see Neg. Inst. Law, § 50), no bill of particulars of other matter need be furnished. City of Rochester v. McDowell, 35 N. Y. St. Repr. 538; Matthews v. Hubbard, 47 N. Y. 428.
Defendant sets up as a separate defense that it, to the *143knowledge of plaintiff, received no consideration for the indorsement.
What defendant now seeks in his bill of particulars, is plaintiff’s evidence m…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Matthews v. . HubbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Smidt v. BaileyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Starr v. Yvette Co.New York Supreme Court · 1925