Candee v. Daying

66 How. Pr. 452
CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas
DecidedMarch 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 How. Pr. 452 (Candee v. Daying) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Candee v. Daying, 66 How. Pr. 452 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1884).

Opinion

Beach, J.

Bills of particulars are of two kinds; one appertains to an account between parties, the other to a claim of one party. The rules governing the right to the one or other are different. Giles agt. Bets (15 Abb. Pr., 285) refers to the latter, while Williams agt. Shaw (4 Abb. Pr., 209) refers to the former, and is a special term decision. From the brief memorandum it seems to me the learned judge did not appreciate the difference between a bill of particulars of an account and one of a claim.

This action is to recover -an indebtedness on an account for goods sold and delivered. Upon a demand, the plaintiff has furnished a bill of particulars of the account, itemizing only the debit side. In my opinion, an account should contain credits, if any, as well as debits. One class of items is no more a part of the account than the other (Dowdney agt. Volkenning, 37 Sup. C. R., 313). The rule is different when the bill of particulars of a claim is ordered by the court.

Motion granted, ten dollars costs to abide event.

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

Related

Tarpey v. Jersey Co-operative Co.
98 Misc. 302 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 How. Pr. 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candee-v-daying-nyctcompl-1884.