Oviatt v. Oviatt

The Superior Court of New York City

Oviatt v. Oviatt

70 N.Y. St. Rep. 427

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 427 (Oviatt v. Oviatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oviatt v. Oviatt, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 427 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GtldersleeveJ J.

It does not seem to me that a bill of particulars should.be ordered in this case. The action is for divorce, on the ground of adultery. The complaint names the places where the alleged acts of adultery were committed, also gives the [428]*428name of, at least, one of the alleged co-respondents. It is true that the dates are somewhat indefinite, but the information sought for lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, who seeks it; and there is little danger of undue surprise at the trial. The motion should therefore be denied. See Fink v. Jetter, 38 Hun, 163. No costs.

Motion denied, without costs.

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

GtldersleeveJ J.

It does not seem to me that a bill of particulars should.be ordered in this case. The action is for divorce, on the ground of adultery. The complaint names the places where the alleged acts of adultery were committed, also gives the [428]*428name of, at least, one of the alleged co-respondents. It is true that the dates are somewhat indefinite, but the information sought for lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, who seeks it; and there is little danger of undue surprise at the trial. The motion should therefore be denied. See Fink v. Jetter, 38 Hun, 163. No costs.

Motion denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.Y. St. Rep. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oviatt-v-oviatt-nysuperctnyc-1895.