Blake v. Harrigan
New York Supreme Court
At chambers. Action by Peter Blake against John J. Harrigan, individually and as executor, etc., and others, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Defendants set up a breach by plaintiff of his contract to erect the buildings in question, and claimed damages in the sum of $8,000. Plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars being refused, he now moves for an order compelling defendant to furnish an itemized statement of the damages claimed. Code Civil Proc.
Read the full summary
At chambers. Action by Peter Blake against John J. Harrigan, individually and as executor, etc., and others, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Defendants set up a breach by plaintiff of his contract to erect the buildings in question, and claimed damages in the sum of $8,000. Plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars being refused, he now moves for an order compelling defendant to furnish an itemized statement of the damages claimed. Code Civil Proc. H. Y. § 531, provides: “It is not necessary for a party to set forth in a pleading the items of an account therein alleged, but in that case he…
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, J.
There seems to be a distinction in Code, § 531, between “items of an amount” and “particulars” of a claim. Thus, in the well-known Tilton v. Beecher, 59 N. Y. 176, and Dwight v. Insurance Co., 84 N. Y. 493, cases, it could not be said that there was an account of which items were given, but the party was required to furnish particulars of the claim. . This action is to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The defendant sets up as a counterclaim, in substance, that the plaintiff entered into a written contract, set forth therein, with defendant to build a certain building; that the plaintiff has…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tilton v. . BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Dwight v. . Germania Life Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hoeninghaus v. ChaleyerNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cohn v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1893