Goodrich v. James

New York Supreme Court

Goodrich v. James

1 Wend. 289

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 Wend. 289 (Goodrich v. James) 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

Goodrich v. James, 1 Wend. 289 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

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

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wend. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrich-v-james-nysupct-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack