1 Wend. 289
Decided October 15, 1828
New York Supreme Court · decided 1828-10-15
Bill of particulars. A motion was made in this cause, to set aside the proceedings for irregularity on various grounds, , i , amongst others that a bill ot particulars had not been served, It appeared, that in pursuance of a judge’s order, the plaintiff had furnished a bill of particulars, in which, instead of setting forth the items of merchandize sold, there was a general reference to “ an account rendered.” This, it was contended, was not a compliance with the order, and…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1828-10-15
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1892
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1By the Court,
¶2The bill of particulars was sufficiently definite. It is allowable, when an account has already been delivered, to refer to is generally in the bill of particulars, without restating the items of it. (Peake’s Cas. 172.) Besides, the party, if dissatisfied, should have obtained an order for further particulars, and had no right to consider the plaintiff in default, because he had furnished what he deemed an insufficient bill.
¶3Motion denied with costs.