Case ID: nys_2/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ennis et al. v. Hosford et al.
    
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
    
    November 27, 1888.)
    Pleading—Bill oe Particulars'—Counter-Claim—Defective Reply.
    The fact that a reply is very loosely drawn is no reason for refusing an order directing defendant to furnish a bill of particulars of his counter-claim, since such a reply cannot be treated as a nullity.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by B. William Ennis and another against Henry Hosford and another. Defendants appeal from an order directing them to furnish a bill of particulars of their counter-claim.
    
      Henry P. Starbuck, for appellants. N. Cothran, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The court below had the power to grant the order appealed from, and it was proper so to do, unless the reply of the plaintiff to the counter-claim in question is to be treated as a nullity. We do not see how this can be done. If the defendants desired to have the same made more definite, they should have made a motion for that purpose. The denial, as it stands, applies to all that is contained in the counter-claim as pleaded. It is true that it is very loosely drawn, but the remedy was by motion to have it put in proper form. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs.