Case Name: Robert C. Black et al., Resp'ts, v. Henry McAleenan et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05-18
Citations: 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 712
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert C. Black et al., Resp’ts, v. Henry McAleenan et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 60
Pages: 712–712

Head Matter:
Robert C. Black et al., Resp’ts, v. Henry McAleenan et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed May 18, 1894.)
Bill of particulars—When rot required.
In an action to recover goods delivered by plaintiff to a third person, to he shown to a proposed purchaser, the plaintiff will not be required to give a bill of particulars, stating the name, and address of the proposed purchaser.
Appeal from an order granting a motion for a further bill of particulars giving the name, address, business and financial standing of the proposed purchaser of goods delivered to a third person to be shown to him.
Joseph Fetiretch, for app’lts; George C. Comstock, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
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.