Case Name: Rowan vs. Merritt & Porter
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 9 Wend. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rowan vs. Merritt & Porter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wendell's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Rowan vs. Merritt & Porter.
Where there is an interlocutory order for a bill of particulars, and that in the meantime all proceedings stay, and a peremptory order be subsequently made, the plaintiff cannot proceed in the suit until he delivers the bill; the defendant is not bound to servo the final order.
The defendants obtained an order for the plaintiff to shew cause why he should not deliver a bill of particulars, and that in the meantime all proceedings on the part of the plaintiff stay, A peremptory order was subsequently granted, but the defendants not serving it upon the plaintiff, he entered their default for not pleading, which was now moved to be set aside as irregularly entered.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The default was irregularly entered ; the defendants were not bound to serve the peremptory order for any purpose but to non-pross the plaintiff. The portion of the original order that in the meantime all proceedings on the part of the plaintiff stay, continues and is operative until the delivery of the bill of particulars, if a peremptory order be granted.