Case Name: DUEBER WATCH CASE CO. v. NOYES
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-10
Citations: 29 Abb. N. Cas. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: DUEBER WATCH CASE CO. v. NOYES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's New Cases
Volume: 29
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
DUEBER WATCH CASE CO. v. NOYES.
N. Y. Supreme Court, Special Term, First District;
October, 1892.
Bills of particulars ; action for causing boycott.] In an action for damages by a manufacturer against rivals for causing a boycott of his goods, the complaint alleged generally that a large number of dealers (without giving their names or addresses) had refused to buy plaintiff’s goods because of defendants’ acts. Held, that such allegation was in the nature of an allegation of special damages, and that a bill of particulars of the names and addresses should be ordered.
Motion for a bill of particulars.
The action was brought by the Dueber Watch Case Company against James H. Noyes and others.
The complaint in substance alleged that plaintiff was a manufacturer of watch cases ; that defendants, who were dealers and manufacturers of watches, had entered into an agreement amongst themselves not to sell any goods-manufactured by them to any one who should buy or sell plaintiff’s goods; that defendants had caused notice of such agreement to be given to dealers in plaintiff’s goods,, and that in consequence a large number of dealers had refused to'buy from plaintiff. A judgment for $500,000 was demanded for the damages thus occasioned.
Defendants move that the plaintiff be required to serve a bill of particulars of the names and addresses of the persons who were prevented from dealing with the plaintiff, of the times and places at which they were prevented, and the losses of profits to the plaintiff that were thereby occasioned.
William A. Abbott, for the motion.
Wilbur & Oldman, opposed.
See, also, American Multiple, etc. Fabric Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co., 18 Abb. N. C. 70; Cunard v. Francklyn, 111 N. Y. 511 ; Kranz v. Dun, 8 Civ. Pro. R. 403; Lane v. Williams, 37 Hun, 388 ; Passavant v. Cantor, 21 Abb. N. C. 259; Ross v. Willett, 34 State Rep. 121.

Opinion:
Beach, J.
I think the following adjudictions support this application : Kraft v. Dingee, 38 Hun, 345 ; Child v. Tuttle, 48 Id. 248 ; Infant Asylum v. Roosevelt, 35 Id. 501. The averment in the complaint that dealers refused to buy plaintiff's goods because of defendants' action is in the nature of an allegation of special damages.
Motion granted for specifications of names and addresses.