Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920

Husted v. A. P. Husted Co.

Husted v. A. P. Husted Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 5, 1920 · Jenks
193 A.D. 493; 184 N.Y.S. 844; 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5579

Counsel

Winfield L. Morse [John J. Sinnott with him on the brief], for the appellant., Charles A. Dryer, for the respondent.

Husted v. A. P. Husted Co.

Opinion of the Court

Jenks, P. J.:

The learned counsel for the defendant moved as if the complaint was for a libel. I find no indication that such was the view of the learned Special Term. And I am of opinion that it was not necessary to construe the pleading thus. The complaint may be read as in an action on the case, though *494the words be not defamatory in their nature. (Morasse v. Brochu, 151 Mass. 574; J. A. & R. A. Reid v. Prov. Journal Co., 20 R. I. 120, 124.)

As the learned Special Term suggests, the defendant may well ask a bill of particulars, for special damages are pleaded. (Mussinan. v. Willner Wood Co., 69 App. Div. 448; Post-Express Printing Co. v. Adams, 55 Hun, 35; Royle v. Goodwin, 98 App. Div. 95.)

The order is modified by striking out "the provision for $10 costs of the motion, and as modified it is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Mills, Rich, Putnam and Kelly, JJ., concur.

Order modified by striking out the provision for ten dollars costs of the motion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.