New York Supreme Court, 1844

Rust v. Rowe

Rust v. Rowe
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 15, 1844
1 How. Pr. 46

Counsel

R. W. Peckham, Bafts Counsel. H. S. Dodge, Bafts Atty., A. Taber, Plffs Counsel. J. M. Van Cott, Plffs Atty.

Rust v. Rowe

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Since notice was, given of the motion the plaintiff has served a sufficient bill of particulars. He has now confined his claim to the balance found in his favor on an account stated between the parties in 1839, which account consisted of five items for cash lent and advanced to the defendant; interest is also claimed, dates and sums are given with sufficient particularity. The motion is therefore denied .on the plaintiff’s paying $ 10 costs of the same. Rule accordingly.

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