From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Irvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1906
116 App. Div. 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)

Opinion

December 21, 1906.

Francis Woodbridge, of counsel [ Lord, Day Lord and Darius E. Peck, attorneys], for the appellants.

Robert Kelly Prentice, of counsel [ A. Coleman Smith, attorney], for the respondents.

Present — PATTERSON, P.J., INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ.


The defendants in their separate answers plead certain accounts heretofore made as a defense. We are of the opinion that in pleading said accounts the defendants properly conformed to the provisions contained in the 1st paragraph of section 531 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which it is set forth that "It is not necessary for a party to set forth in a pleading the items of an account therein alleged," but that having pleaded in accordance with said provisions the mere fact of the account, the subsequent provisions of the section which are as follows, "But in that case he must deliver to the adverse party, within ten days after a written demand thereof, a copy of the account which, if the pleading is verified, must be verified by his affidavit to the effect that he believes it to be true * * *. If he fails so to do he is precluded from giving evidence of the account," apply.

The plaintiffs made a demand for the accounts as provided for in said section, and not having received them within the specified time made a motion before the Special Term for an order precluding the defendants from giving evidence thereof. The learned court did not grant the motion as made, but did require the defendants to furnish copies of the said accounts to the plaintiffs' attorney within twenty days, and it is from that order that the defendants appeal.

We think the plaintiffs were entitled to the accounts, and if not, to the relief demanded. But we think that it is within the discretionary power of the court in the order precluding the giving of evidence to provide that said order shall be effective unless copies of the accounts are furnished within a specified time. Plaintiffs are entitled to these accounts as a matter of right, under the first part of said section, and not as a matter of discretion as of a bill of particulars, as is provided for in the latter part of the section.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be modified by providing that the defendants be precluded from giving evidence of the accounts or statements referred to in paragraph 9, subdivisions 6, 13, 14 and 20 of each of their answers, unless within twenty days after the entry of the order and service of a copy thereof with notice of entry they furnish to the plaintiffs' attorney copies of the accounts set up in the said paragraphs of each of their said answers, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party.


Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed without costs. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Smith v. Irvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 21, 1906
116 App. Div. 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
Case details for

Smith v. Irvin

Case Details

Full title:MARY I. SMITH and ETHEL VAN BERGEN, Respondents, v . MARY M. IRVIN…

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1906

Citations

116 App. Div. 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
101 N.Y.S. 904