Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co.

E.D. New York

Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co.

1 F.R.D. 605, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2003

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 1941

DocketCiv. No. 1701

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 F.R.D. 605 (Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muldowney v. Seaberg Elevator Co., 1 F.R.D. 605, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2003 (E.D.N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion on behalf of the defendant for a bill of particulars.

Demands 1, 2, 7 and 9 should be answered ; as to demand 8 it will be sufficient for plaintiff to give the number of hours per week of each week he will claim he was actively employed and engaged in the work of the defendant, and he will not be required to give a schedule of the days and hours.

It is true that the institution of the action is a sufficient demand, where a demand is required, but plaintiff having alleged the making of a demand prior to the institution of this action, he should answer that demand.

Demands 3, 4, S and 6 are disallowed, as the plaintiff could not answer them without obtaining such information by an examination before trial' of the defendant, its officers, books and papers. The information so requested is in the exclusive possession of the defendant, and not of the plaintiff.

Settle order on notice.

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