Bennett v. Wardell

New York Supreme Court

Bennett v. Wardell

50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 452, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 767

DecidedFebruary 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 452 (Bennett v. Wardell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Wardell, 50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 452, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 767 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.:

This is an action for the partition of real property, and the complaint alleges the plaintiff and some of the defendants to be tenants in common, but that the defendants Warded claim an interest in the premises under an apparent devise which is void.

The defendants made a motion and obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars stating the particular grounds upon which it is claimed the devise 6tated in the complaint is void. The plaintiff has appealed from the order, and it cannot be sustained. If the plaintiff made an effort to comply with the requirements of the order appealed from, he could only furnish his arguments and legal reasons and conclusions upon which he believes the devise to be void. No bid of particulars of the claim of the plaintiff can be furuished, for he sets up no claim. He merely asserts that the defendants Warded have no claim. The case is, therefore, hot a case in which a bill of particulars should be required.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurred; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Order granting particulars Teversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dykman, J.:

This is an action for the partition of real property, and the complaint alleges the plaintiff and some of the defendants to be tenants in common, but that the defendants Warded claim an interest in the premises under an apparent devise which is void.

The defendants made a motion and obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars stating the particular grounds upon which it is claimed the devise 6tated in the complaint is void. The plaintiff has appealed from the order, and it cannot be sustained. If the plaintiff made an effort to comply with the requirements of the order appealed from, he could only furnish his arguments and legal reasons and conclusions upon which he believes the devise to be void. No bid of particulars of the claim of the plaintiff can be furuished, for he sets up no claim. He merely asserts that the defendants Warded have no claim. The case is, therefore, hot a case in which a bill of particulars should be required.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurred; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Order granting particulars Teversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 452, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-wardell-nysupct-1887.