Humphry v. Cottleyou
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of trover. June 2d, 1842, an order was made by the Hon. J. T. Irving, first Judge, &c. requir*£ the plaintiffs to show cause before him at his office, at the City Hall, N. York, on the 10th, why they should not deliver to the defendant, or his attorney, an account in writing 0f the particulars of the plaintiffs’ demand. This order was _ „ , served on the agent of the plaintiffs’ attorney, but did npt rea°h him till the 12th.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover. June 2d, 1842, an order was made by the Hon. J. T. Irving, first Judge, &c. requir*£ the plaintiffs to show cause before him at his office, at the City Hall, N. York, on the 10th, why they should not deliver to the defendant, or his attorney, an account in writing 0f the particulars of the plaintiffs’ demand. This order was _ „ , served on the agent of the plaintiffs’ attorney, but did npt rea°h him till the 12th. On the 10th, the order was made absolute, that the plaintiffs deliver a bill of particulars to the defendant or his attorney ; and that in the mean…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
In a bill of particulars, the date of the items should always be given with as much particularity as possible. If the precise day cannot be stated, the month or year probably can. This is a matter in relation to which the Judge Avho grants the order must exercise a sound discretion on hearing both parties, under all the circumstances of the case. The motion must be denied.
Motion denied.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tilton v. . BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Tilton v. BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Dowdney v. VolkeningThe Superior Court of New York City · 1874
- Schile v. BrokhahneThe Superior Court of New York City · 1876