Case Name: TALMAGE v. SANITARY SECURITY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-02-04
Citations: 37 N.Y.S. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: TALMAGE v. SANITARY SECURITY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 37
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
TALMAGE v. SANITARY SECURITY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
February 4, 1896.)
Pleading—Bill of Particulars.
In an action against a corporation to recover damages for alleged false representations of defendant’s agents, a denial of defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars as to the names of the alleged agents is not error, where the motion, though alleging that defendant was ignorant of the names of the agents alleged to have made the false representations, is-not accompanied by any proof that the allegations of the complaint in. regard to such representations were denied.
Appeal from special term.
Action by John F. Talmage against the Sanitary Security Company. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars, it appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BEOWN, P. J., and PEATT, CULLEN, BAET-LETT, and HATCH, JJ.
John Berry, for appellant.
James McKeen, for respondent.

Opinion:
PEE CUBIAM.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was induced to purchase certain stock of the defendant by means of false representations by authorized agents of the corporation. It did not disclose, however, who the persons were by whom the representations were said to have been made. In order to ascertain these names, the defendant moved, at special term, for a- bill of particulars, upon an affidavit by the president of the corporation stating that the defendant and its officers were ignorant of the names of the persons who it was alleged had made the false representations relied upon. If this affidavit had been accompanied by proof that the allegations of the complaint in respect to the false representations were denied by the defendant, then a proper case for relief would have been made out, so far as to call upon the special term to require the plaintiff to give the names of the persons by whom he would seek to show that the misrepresentations had been made; but no copy of the answer appears to have been furnished to the judge who heard the motion, and there is no statement in the moving affidavit as to what the answer contains.
On this record, we feel constrained to confirm the order appealed from, but without costs, and with leave to the defendant to renew its motion for a bill of particulars upon papers showing that the allegations of the complaint in regard to the false representations are denied.