Dueber Watch-Case Manufacturing Co. v. Keystone Watch-Case Co.

21 N.Y.S. 342, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 417
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 16, 1892·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

BARRETT, J.

The application'for a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim was granted in part and denied in part. The defendant the Keystone Watch-Case Company appeals upon the ground that the motion should have been granted in its entirety. We think, however, that the motion should have been denied in its entirety, for the reason that it was not founded upon an affidavit made by the defendant. The only affidavit upon which 'the motion was founded was that of the defend[343]*343ant’s attorney, and it has been settled, by repeated adjudications, that such an affidavit is insufficient. The only reason given by the attorney why this affidavit is not made by his client is that the defendant whom he represents is a foreign corporation, and all of its officers are without this state, and that he (the attorney) has charge of this action. The attorney cannot know that the defendant needs the particulars which it claims, or that it has not in its possession all the facts -which it seeks to compel its adversary to disclose. The fact that the defendant is a foreign corporation does not affect or vary the ordinary rule which governs upon this subject, and there is no more reason why the affidavit upon which such , a motion is based should not be made by its officers than by an individual defendant, or by the officers of a domestic corporation. As the plaintiff has not appealed from so much of the order as granted the motion for a bill of particulars in part, we can only affirm the order appealed from, with costs. Order appealed from accordingly affirmed, with costs and the usual disbursements. All concur.

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

Dueber Watch-Case Manufacturing Co. v. Keystone Watch-Case Co., 21 N.Y.S. 342, 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 417 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

21 N.Y.S. 342 (Dueber Watch-Case Manufacturing Co. v. Keystone Watch-Case Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co.
112 A.D. 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)
Jacobs v. Friedman
28 Misc. 441 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)
Gallerstein v. Manhattan Railway Co.
27 Misc. 506 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Wales Manufacturing Co. v. Lazzaro
19 Misc. 477 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Groff v. Hagan
34 N.Y.S. 462 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1895)
Van Olinda v. Hall
31 N.Y.S. 495 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)