Childs v. Tuttle
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order made at tbe Onondaga Special Term denying the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to make and serve a bill of particulars of their cause of action.
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, J.:
¥e think the learned judge at Special Term erred in denying the defendants’ motion. The action was for slander of title to personal property. The plaintiffs in their complaint allege in the most general manner, that the defendants wrongfully and maliciously sent their agents and employees, to the agents, purchasers and users of a spring tooth harrow, manufactured and sold by plaintiffs, to threaten such agents, purchasers and users with litigation if they continued to use, purchase or sell such harrow; falsely claiming that such harrow was an infringement upon certain patents owned…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tobias v. HarlandNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Kendall v. . StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Hallock v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Linden v. GrahamThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Havemeyer v. FullerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carroll v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1937