McFarland v. Consolidated Gas Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

McFarland v. Consolidated Gas Co.

125 F. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5092

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedAugust 24, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 125 F. 260 (McFarland v. Consolidated Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McFarland v. Consolidated Gas Co., 125 F. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5092 (circtsdny 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

It is difficult to harmonize the cases in which it has been held that bills of particulars should be given or should not be given in negligence suits. They appear to have been ordered much more freely in cases brought by the person inj'ured than in cases brought by the personal representatives of the person injured. I think that among the cases cited those most similar to the case at bar have ordered bills of particulars to be furnished. Wilson v. American, etc., Co., 56 App. Div. 527, 67 N. Y. Supp. 508; Myers v. Albany Ry. Co., 5 App. Div. 596, 39 N. Y. Supp. 446; Field v. N. Y. Central Ry. Co., 35 Misc. Rep. 111, 71 N. Y. Supp. 220. The fact, too, that the plaintiff repeatedly obtained extensions of time in order to serve a bill of particulars is of considerable weight, as tending to prove an acquiescence in the propriety of the claim that one should be delivered.

My conclusion is that the motion should be granted.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

It is difficult to harmonize the cases in which it has been held that bills of particulars should be given or should not be given in negligence suits. They appear to have been ordered much more freely in cases brought by the person inj'ured than in cases brought by the personal representatives of the person injured. I think that among the cases cited those most similar to the case at bar have ordered bills of particulars to be furnished. Wilson v. American, etc., Co., 56 App. Div. 527, 67 N. Y. Supp. 508; Myers v. Albany Ry. Co., 5 App. Div. 596, 39 N. Y. Supp. 446; Field v. N. Y. Central Ry. Co., 35 Misc. Rep. 111, 71 N. Y. Supp. 220. The fact, too, that the plaintiff repeatedly obtained extensions of time in order to serve a bill of particulars is of considerable weight, as tending to prove an acquiescence in the propriety of the claim that one should be delivered.

My conclusion is that the motion should be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F. 260, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-consolidated-gas-co-circtsdny-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack