Stevens v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Smith

38 A.D. 119, 56 N.Y.S. 540

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D. 119 (Stevens v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevens v. Smith, 38 A.D. 119, 56 N.Y.S. 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The plaintiff made a motion to compel the defendant to serve á bill of ¡particulars upon an affidavit of his attorney, which alleges that “ such alleged credits are not within the special knowledge of the plaintiff.” Just how the attorney could, swear to what was within .the knowledge 'of the plaintiff is not apparent. We have held many times that an affidavit for a bill of particulars, made by the attorn ney, is not sufficient. ■ The last case was that of Mayer v. Mayer (29 App. Div. 393). For this reason the order appealed from must ■ be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. ' . '

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

Per Curiam :

The plaintiff made a motion to compel the defendant to serve á bill of ¡particulars upon an affidavit of his attorney, which alleges that “ such alleged credits are not within the special knowledge of the plaintiff.” Just how the attorney could, swear to what was within .the knowledge 'of the plaintiff is not apparent. We have held many times that an affidavit for a bill of particulars, made by the attorn ney, is not sufficient. ■ The last case was that of Mayer v. Mayer (29 App. Div. 393). For this reason the order appealed from must ■ be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. ' . '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D. 119, 56 N.Y.S. 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-smith-nyappdiv-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack