Goodrich v. James
1 Wend. 289
Opinion
By the Court,
The bill of particulars was sufficiently definite. It is allowable, when an account has already been delivered, to refer to is generally in the bill of particulars, without restating the items of it. (Peake’s Cas. 172.) Besides, the party, if dissatisfied, should have obtained an order for further particulars, and had no right to consider the plaintiff in default, because he had furnished what he deemed an insufficient bill.
Motion denied with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goodrich v. James, 1 Wend. 289 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).
1 Wend. 289 (Goodrich v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Minneapolis Envelope Co. v. Vanstrom
53 N.W. 768 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)
Freehling v. Ketchum
39 Mich. 299 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Pipes v. Norton
47 Miss. 61 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1872)
Providence Tool Co. v. Prader
32 Cal. 634 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Pryor v. Johnson
32 Ala. 27 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Barnes v. Henshaw
21 Wend. 426 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)
Williams v. Allen
7 Cow. 316 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)