Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. American Waltham Watch Co.

New York Supreme Court

Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. American Waltham Watch Co.

29 Abb. N. Cas. 412

DecidedJanuary 15, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Abb. N. Cas. 412 (Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. American Waltham Watch Co.) 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

Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. American Waltham Watch Co., 29 Abb. N. Cas. 412 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

The bill of particulars already served gives the names and addresses of the persons and firms to whom notices were sent, and who, in consequence of the [413]*413receipt of such notices, withdrew their patronage, and thereupon ceased to trade with the plaintiff, but no dates or times are given. I think that the defendants are entitled to a further bill of particulars, stating more definitely the times when the former purchasers withdrew their patronage, and giving some description of the goods and their value which, it is claimed, said purchasers refused to purchase in consequence of the receipt of the notices alleged to have been sent by the defendants or their agents (see Peabody v. Cortada, 18 N. Y. Supp. 622 ; American Multiple Fabric Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co., 18 Abb. N. C. 70; N. Y. Infant Asylum v. Roosevelt, 35 Hun, 501; Post Express Printing Co. v. Adams, 55 Id. 35).

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the event. Settle order on one day’s notice.

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

Lawrence, J.

The bill of particulars already served gives the names and addresses of the persons and firms to whom notices were sent, and who, in consequence of the [413]*413receipt of such notices, withdrew their patronage, and thereupon ceased to trade with the plaintiff, but no dates or times are given. I think that the defendants are entitled to a further bill of particulars, stating more definitely the times when the former purchasers withdrew their patronage, and giving some description of the goods and their value which, it is claimed, said purchasers refused to purchase in consequence of the receipt of the notices alleged to have been sent by the defendants or their agents (see Peabody v. Cortada, 18 N. Y. Supp. 622 ; American Multiple Fabric Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co., 18 Abb. N. C. 70; N. Y. Infant Asylum v. Roosevelt, 35 Hun, 501; Post Express Printing Co. v. Adams, 55 Id. 35).

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the event. Settle order on one day’s notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Abb. N. Cas. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dueber-watch-case-manufacturing-co-v-american-waltham-watch-co-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack