Case Name: THE GAS WORKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (Limited), Resp't, v. THE STANDARD GAS LIGHT COMPANY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WALLACE C. ANDREWS and JOSEPH A. MONHEIMER, Impleaded with BENJ. F. SHERMAN, App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-18
Citations: 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 1001
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE GAS WORKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (Limited), Resp’t, v. THE STANDARD GAS LIGHT COMPANY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WALLACE C. ANDREWS and JOSEPH A. MONHEIMER, Impleaded with BENJ. F. SHERMAN, App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 16
Pages: 1001–1001

Head Matter:
THE GAS WORKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA (Limited), Resp’t, v. THE STANDARD GAS LIGHT COMPANY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WALLACE C. ANDREWS and JOSEPH A. MONHEIMER, Impleaded with BENJ. F. SHERMAN, App’lts.
Bill of particulars—Further rill when ordered.
An appeal from special term order granting a motion by the plaintiff for a further bill of particulars.
Gratz Nathan and J. W. Hawes, for app’lts; DeLancey Nicoll, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The bills of particulars originally served by the appellants did not constitute a full and fair compliance with the first order of the special term. They were evasive, and evidently framed so as to give the plaintiff just as little information as possible, and at the same time apparently fulfil the requirements of the order. The Standard Gas Light Company and the defendant Andrews specify an agreement "for common stock" of said company, as a consideration for the assignment of the patents which are the subject matter of the action, but neither the terms of the agreement nor the number of shares of stock are stated. The defendant Monheimer states that the consideration of the assignment to him, by the defendant Sherman, was the performance of sundry services in rela'ion to various matters in which he and the said Sherman were jointly interested, but omits to specify what the services were or what were the matters.
The special term was clearly right in directing that each defendant should furnish a further bill of particulars, and the order appealed from must be affirmed with costs and disbursements.