Majority
p. 222Ryckman and another against Haight. moved for judgment as in case of non pr o s, on the ground that the plaintms had not furnished to the defendant a bill of the particulars of their demand, pursuant to the order of the recorder of New-York, for that purpose. (Fleurot v. Durand, 14 Johns. Rep. 329 .) read an affidavit, stating that thé plaintifís' Were ready to deliver to the defendant a bill of the particulars. of their demand ; but to enable them to state the credits with accuracy, they had applied to the defendants for an account of the moneys he had paid to them, which he had refused to give. He stated, on the authority of the case of Adlington v. Appleton, (2 Campb. N. P. Cas. 410.) that unless the plaintiffs could also state the credits, so as to show the precise balance claimed by the plaintiffs, it would not be a compliance with the judge’s order; yet the plaintiffs were ready to give the particulars of the debit side of their account, and of thé credits, so far as théy were known.
Headnote
The plaintiff, particulars of not oUiged to state the credits, or payments made£>y the defendant.THIS was an action of assumpsit, for work and labour, and materials found, and goods sold and delivered, and the declaration also contained the usual money counts.
B. Haight, for the defendantnon
Wilson, contra,
The practice of this court Is merely to compel the plaintiff to specify the particulars of his demand. We consider thé bill of particulars as an amplification of the counts in. the declaration. The defendant must know, as well' as the plaintiffs, whát sums he hás paid, and
p. 223
if he is furnished with the debit side of the account, he can readily ascertain the balance claimed.
The defendant must take his rulé, that the plaintiffs furnish a bill of the particulars of their demand, exclusive of credits for payments by the defendant, in ten days, or that a judgment of nonpros be entered.
Rule accordingly.