Fleurot v. Durand
14 Johns. 329
Opinion
There appears to be no established rule of practice in this respect. As the particulars of the plaintiff’s may be deemed as part of his declaration, we think it the proper course for the defendant to move for judgment, as in case of non pros, for want of the bill of particulars, as he might have done for want of a declaration. We, therefore, grant the rule that the plaintiff furnish to the defendant the particulars of his demand, in twenty days, or that a judgment of non pros be entered.
Rule granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fleurot v. Durand, 14 Johns. 329 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).
14 Johns. 329 (Fleurot v. Durand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Van Syckel v. O'Hearn
50 N.J. Eq. 173 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1892)
McKenzie v. . Harrison
24 N.E. 458 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Kirchner v. Laughlin
4 N.M. 218 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1888)
Dwight v. . Germania Life Insurance Co.
84 N.Y. 493 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Benedict v. Swain
43 N.H. 33 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1861)
Williams v. Allen
7 Cow. 316 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Brewster v. Sackett
1 Cow. 571 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)