Matthews v. . Hubbard
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Suprejne Court in the first judicial department, aiming order of Special Term striking out certain items of plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The points presented are stated in the opinion. The bill was defective. (Moran v. Morissey, 18 How., 131.) The allowing another to be served is a matter of favor. (Pimby v. Warden, 18 Wend., 471; Stanley v. Millard, 4 Hill, 51.)
1Opinion of the CourtRapallo, J.
The office of a bill of particulars is to apprise the defendant of the items which the plaintiff intends to prove upon the trial, and to restrict his proofs to the matters specified. The merits of the case cannot be inquired into upon a motion for such a bill, nor can the sufficiency of the hill he determined by the allegations of the answer. The bill is but an amplification of the complaint, and the plaintiff has the right to present his case according to his own view of the facts. The responsibility of proving the items as described rests with him, and he is entitled to the opportunity of…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Harmon v. Alfred Peats Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Middleton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
- Dodge v. . WeillNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Powers v. Washington Portland Cement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.