From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Redfern Company, Limited

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1915
172 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Opinion

December, 1915.


Order, in so far as appealed from, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion in its entirety granted, with ten dollars costs, upon the ground that, according to the well-settled practice as established by many decisions, the defendant is entitled to have a full bill of particulars as asked for in the notice of motion. (See American Woolen Co. of New York v. Altkrug, 137 App. Div. 621; Rhodes v. Adams, 113 id. 304; Dempsey v. Bergen County Traction Co., 74 id. 474; Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 id. 345; Hoareau v. Schwartzkopf, 142 id. 69, 70; Havholm v. Whale Creek Iron Works, 159 id. 578, 582.) Jenks, P.J., Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Redfern Company, Limited

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1915
172 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)
Case details for

Jackson v. Redfern Company, Limited

Case Details

Full title:H. Cecil Jackson, Respondent, v. Redfern Company, Limited, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1915

Citations

172 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)