Webster v. Fitchburg Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Webster v. Fitchburg Railroad

32 Misc. 442, 66 N.Y.S. 220

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Misc. 442 (Webster v. Fitchburg Railroad) 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

Webster v. Fitchburg Railroad, 32 Misc. 442, 66 N.Y.S. 220 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Chase, J.

The answer herein is a denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the principal allegations of the complaint. The motion is based on the pleadings and on the affidavit of the attorney for the defendant.

It is only in an action on an account that a bill of particulars may be directed on inspection of the pleadings. In every other case a motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the discretion of the court, and must be founded upon affidavits showing the necessity for the bill of particulars. Badger v. Gilroy, 21 Misc. Rep. 466.

The affidavit herein does not deny the defendant’s negligence, and does not show that the officers and agents of the defendant are ignorant of the matters concerning which the bill of particulars is asked nor that any inquiry has been made by the defendant with reference thereto. It states that the complaint does not allege what particular engine or what particular train of cars passed the land of the plaintiffs at the time of the alleged fire and concludes that it is impossible for the defendant to properly prepare for trial without knowing what particular engine it will be claimed on the trial was defective in its means for preventing the escape of sparks. This is wholly insufficient. Wales Mfg. Co. v. Lazzaro, 19 Misc. Rep. 477; Bowman Cycle Co. v. Dyer, 23 id. 620; Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 28 id. 319; Constable v. Hardenbergh, 76 Hun, 434.

No reason is given why the affidavit is made by the attorney for the defendant. It has been repeatedly held that an affidavit for a bill of particulars, made by an attorney, without giving any reason why it is not made by the party, is insufficient; Mayer v. Mayer, 29 App. Div. 393; Stevens v. Smith, 38 id. 119; Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Keystone Watch Case Co., 50 N. Y. St. Repr. [444]*444417; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Pro. 215; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Cohn v. Baldwin, 74 id. 346; Groff v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322; Mori v. Pearsall, 14 id. 251; Gallerstein v. Manhattan R. Co., 27 id. 506.

The motion for a bill of particulars is domed, with costs.

Motion denied, with costs.

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

Chase, J.

The answer herein is a denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the principal allegations of the complaint. The motion is based on the pleadings and on the affidavit of the attorney for the defendant.

It is only in an action on an account that a bill of particulars may be directed on inspection of the pleadings. In every other case a motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the discretion of the court, and must be founded upon affidavits showing the necessity for the bill of particulars. Badger v. Gilroy, 21 Misc. Rep. 466.

The affidavit herein does not deny the defendant’s negligence, and does not show that the officers and agents of the defendant are ignorant of the matters concerning which the bill of particulars is asked nor that any inquiry has been made by the defendant with reference thereto. It states that the complaint does not allege what particular engine or what particular train of cars passed the land of the plaintiffs at the time of the alleged fire and concludes that it is impossible for the defendant to properly prepare for trial without knowing what particular engine it will be claimed on the trial was defective in its means for preventing the escape of sparks. This is wholly insufficient. Wales Mfg. Co. v. Lazzaro, 19 Misc. Rep. 477; Bowman Cycle Co. v. Dyer, 23 id. 620; Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 28 id. 319; Constable v. Hardenbergh, 76 Hun, 434.

No reason is given why the affidavit is made by the attorney for the defendant. It has been repeatedly held that an affidavit for a bill of particulars, made by an attorney, without giving any reason why it is not made by the party, is insufficient; Mayer v. Mayer, 29 App. Div. 393; Stevens v. Smith, 38 id. 119; Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Keystone Watch Case Co., 50 N. Y. St. Repr. [444]*444417; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Pro. 215; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Cohn v. Baldwin, 74 id. 346; Groff v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322; Mori v. Pearsall, 14 id. 251; Gallerstein v. Manhattan R. Co., 27 id. 506.

The motion for a bill of particulars is domed, with costs.

Motion denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 442, 66 N.Y.S. 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webster-v-fitchburg-railroad-nysupct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack