Case ID: abbn-cas_29/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DUEBER WATCH CASE MANUFACTURING CO. v. AMERICAN WALTHAM WATCH CO.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court, Special Term, First District;
    
    
      January, 1893.
    
      Bill of particulars ; action for catising éoycoít.J In an action by a manufacturer against rivals for causing a boycott of his goods, a bill of particulars was served by plaintiff which only gave the names and addresses of the persons and firms to whom notices of the boycott were sent, and who in consequence withdrew their patronage from plaintiff.—Held, that defendants were entitled to a further bill of particulars, stating the times when' the former purchasers withdrew their patronage, and giving some description of the goods, and their value, which plaintiff claimed that said purchasers had refused to purchase in consequence of the alleged notices sent by defendants.
    
    Motion for a further bill of particulars.
    The action was brought by the Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Company against the American Waltham Watch Company and others, to recover damages caused to plaintiffs business by an agreement between defendants not to sell any goods manufactured by them to anyone who should buy or sell plaintiffs goods, and the sending of notices of such agreement to plaintiff’s customers.
    
      Carter & Ledyard, for the motion.
    
      Wilber & Oldham, opposed.
    
      
       See also Dueber Watch Case Co. v. Noyes, on page 115 of this Volume.
    
   Lawrence, J.

The bill of particulars already served gives the names and addresses of the persons and firms to whom notices were sent, and who, in consequence of the receipt of such notices, withdrew their patronage, and thereupon ceased to trade with the plaintiff, but no dates or times are given. I think that the defendants are entitled to a further bill of particulars, stating more definitely the times when the former purchasers withdrew their patronage, and giving some description of the goods and their value which, it is claimed, said purchasers refused to purchase in consequence of the receipt of the notices alleged to have been sent by the defendants or their agents (see Peabody v. Cortada, 18 N. Y. Supp. 622 ; American Multiple Fabric Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co., 18 Abb. N. C. 70; N. Y. Infant Asylum v. Roosevelt, 35 Hun, 501; Post Express Printing Co. v. Adams, 55 Id. 35).

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the event. Settle order on one day’s notice.