Legal Opinion

McClellan v. Duncombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 1, 1898PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal by the plaintiffs, Clarence S. McClellan and another,' from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Dutchess County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 29th day of July, 1897, granting the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars.

1Opinion of the Court

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiffs bring this action against this defendant for the purpose of collecting a bill for services alleged to have been rendered the defendant in connection with the.probate of the' will, and the settlement of the estate, of the husband of the defendant. The defendant, before answering, made application for an order compelling the plaintiffs, to furnish a bill of particulars,' alleging in her affidavit that the information which she demanded was necessary in making her answer to the complaint. This application for an order to furnish a bill of particulars was accompanied…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Credit Indemnity Co. v. BondyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  2. Morrill v. KazisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  3. Watertown Paper Co. v. WestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  4. Hayes v. St. Mary's Lodging HouseNew York Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kuster v. New York Times Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  2. Kuster v. New York Times Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  3. International Import & Export Co. v. Di MondaCity of New York Municipal Court · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API