Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Jones & S. 156

Lahey v. Kortright

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided December 12, 1887

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1887-12-12

The action was to procure the repayment to the plaint • iff of the ten per cent, deposited by him with the auctioneers, on a stile by auction of certain real estate, and to recover the expenses of examining the title, on the ground that the vendors could not give a good title. The answer, among other things, alleged a cause of action against the plaintiff for a forfeiture of the ten per cent., alleging that the vendors have a good title.

Relies on Tilton v. . Beecher

Decided 1887-12-12

Per Curiam.

¶1Section 531 of the Code provides that the court may, in any case, direct a bill of particulars of the claim of either party to be delivered to the adverse party. Tilton v. Beecher, 59 N. Y. 187, states the rule ■ to be, that in almost every kind of case in which the ■ defendant can satisfy the court that it is necessary to a fair trial that he should be apprised beforehand of the particulars of the charge that he is expected to meet, the court has authority to compel the adverse party to specify those particulars, so far as in his power.”

¶2To entitle plaintiff to recover in this action, he must prove that the defendants have failed to convey or offered to convey a good title to the property which the plaintiff agreed to purchase. Baylass v. Stimson, 53 Super. Ct. 233.

¶3The charge that defendants will be called to meet, is that the title that they offered to convey was not a good title to the premises, and we are satisfied that it is necessary to a fair trial of the action that defendants should ■be apprised beforehand of the specific defects in the title. Without such knowledge defendants may be surprised on the trial, by the presentation of 'a defect which it is possible may be met or removed. If there is no substantial defect, plaintiff cannot be injured by being «compelled to.specify such defect.

¶4*160The order appealed from, however, in addition to-requiring a bill of particulars, requires that the plaintiff make his reply more definite and certain, or specify some particulars that he is required to furnish by the bill of particulars ordered. Both of these remedies are not required, and we think from the nature of the action, that the more appropriate method is to require the plaintiff to furnish the bill of particulars.

¶5The order appealed from should be modified by striking out the provision for the service of an amended reply, and as so modified, affirmed without costs of this appeal to either party.

/23/joness/156 · .json · Public domain