Case ID: nys_29/html/0148-01.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

(78 Hun, 426.)
    BLACK et al. v. McALEENAN et al.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Eirst Department.
    May 18, 1894.)
    Pleading—Bill oe Particulars.
    In an action to recover a diamond necklace, alleged to have been delivered by plaintiff to one E. for the purpose of showing it to a proposed purchaser, and pawned by E. to defendants, the name, address, business, and financial standing of the proposed purchaser are not particulars which plaintiff will be required to disclose by a bill of particulars.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Robert 0. Black and others against Henry McAleenan and others, to recover a diamond necklace, or its value, alleged to have been delivered by plaintiffs to one Eustace, in order that said Eustace might show it to a proposed customer, and pawned by Eustace to defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion for a further bill of particulars giving the name, address, business, and financial standing of the proposed customer was granted, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.
    Joseph Fettretch, for appellants.
    George C. Comstock, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The name, address, business, and financial •standing of the proposed customer are not particulars of the plaintiffs’ 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. ■