Case Name: Mary Hague, Appellant, v. Northern Hotel Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-06
Citations: 77 Misc. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Hague, Appellant, v. Northern Hotel Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Mary Hague, Appellant, v. Northern Hotel Company, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
June, 1912.)
Negotiable instruments — form and interpretation — indorsement — bona fide holders — taking before maturity.
Bill of particulars — Negotiable instruments Law, § 50 — pleading.
Under section 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, proof of the allegations of a complaint upon a promissory note that it was made to the order of defendant, was indorsed by it and delivered to plaintiff before maturity, establishes a-prima faoie case entitling plaintiff to recover and she need not furnish a bill of particulars of other .matters.
A separate defense that to the knowledge of plaintiff defendant received no consideration for its indorsement of the note does not entitle the defendant to a bill of particulars of plaintiff’s evidence in rebuttal of said defense.
Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the City Court of the city of New York as requires her to ■ furnish a bill of particulars as to whether she claims that consideration passed to the defendant for endorsing the -note in suit; and if she does so claim, then full details as to the character "of such consideration, the time when it was paid, etc.
Sondheim & Sondheim, for appellant.
Curtis, Mallett-Provost & 'Colt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
The complaint alleges that the note, made to the order of the defendant, was 'duly indorsed by it and delivered to the plaintiff before maturity. As plaintiff need, prima facie, prove no more to entitle her to recover (see Neg. Inst. Law, § 50), no bill of particulars of other matter need be furnished. City of Rochester v. McDowell, 35 N. Y. St. Repr. 538; Matthews v. Hubbard, 47 N. Y. 428.
Defendant sets up as a separate defense that it, to the knowledge of plaintiff, received no consideration for the indorsement.
What defendant now seeks in his bill of particulars, is plaintiff's evidence m rebuttal of the defense — a purpose altogether foreign to a bill of particulars. Smidt v. Bailey, 132 App. Div. 177; Smith v. Anderson, 126 id. 24; Barone v. O'Leary, 44 id. 418.
Order modified by excluding therefrom the items called for in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of George 0. Brown, and, as thus modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.
Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur.
Order modified.