Case Name: Ennis et al. v. Hosford et al.
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-11-27
Citations: 2 N.Y.S. 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ennis et al. v. Hosford et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 2
Pages: 649–649

Head Matter:
Ennis et al. v. Hosford et al.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
November 27, 1888.)
Pleading—Bill oe Particulars'—Counter-Claim—Defective Reply.
The fact that a reply is very loosely drawn is no reason for refusing an order directing defendant to furnish a bill of particulars of his counter-claim, since such a reply cannot be treated as a nullity.
Appeal from special term.
Action by B. William Ennis and another against Henry Hosford and another. Defendants appeal from an order directing them to furnish a bill of particulars of their counter-claim.
Henry P. Starbuck, for appellants. N. Cothran, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court below had the power to grant the order appealed from, and it was proper so to do, unless the reply of the plaintiff to the counter-claim in question is to be treated as a nullity. We do not see how this can be done. If the defendants desired to have the same made more definite, they should have made a motion for that purpose. The denial, as it stands, applies to all that is contained in the counter-claim as pleaded. It is true that it is very loosely drawn, but the remedy was by motion to have it put in proper form. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs.