New York Supreme Court, 1894

Black v. McAleenan

Black v. McAleenan
New York Supreme Court · Decided May 18, 1894
29 N.Y.S. 148; 78 Hun 426; 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 426; 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 712 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Joseph Fettretch, for appellants., George C. Comstock, for respondents.

Black v. McAleenan

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The name, address, business, and financial •standing of the proposed customer are not particulars of the plain*149tiffs’ cause of action, but are merely evidentiary facts, which the plaintiffs should not be required to disclose by a bill of particulars. The plaintiffs’ right of recovery would not be defeated or affected by the fact that Eustis gave the name of some person as a proposed customer who had not in fact proposed to purchase the necklace. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. ■

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