Majority
p. 102Ross v. Hamlin et al. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department. January 16, 1891.)
Headnote
Pleading—Bill of Particulars—Motion to Make Definite.An order denying a motion by one of two defendants for a bill of particulars was modified, on appeal, so as to require plaintiff to give, part of the particulars asked for. A motion by the other defendant to have the complaint made more definite and certain having been granted, before such decision'on appeal, a reargument thereof was asked after that decision, but was denied, on the ground that the or
p. 103Argued before Van Brunt, P. J„ and Brady and Daniels, JJ.
der did not conflict with the decision on appeal. Held that, even though that order enlarged on the decision on appeal from the other order, it should not be reversed, as plaintiff was not injured thereby, and could as easily comply with it as with the other order.
Appeal from special term, Mew York county.
Action by Frank Ross, as ancillary administrator of James C. Ross, deceased, against MathanielP. Hamlin, Wallace P. Willett, and-others. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting a motion by defendant Hamlin that the complaint be made more definite and certain.
1Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, {Geo. Bethune Adams, of counsel,) for appellant. John J. Crawford, {Theodore F. Sanxay, of counsel,) for respondents.
Although we are of the opinion that the court below have somewhat enlarged upon the decision of the general term in respect to the same complaint upon the appeal of Willett, ( 11 N. Y. Supp. 621 ,) yet we do not think that the appellants have in any respect been injured by such action of the court. They can as easily comply with the order of the special term as they could with the order of the general term. We think, under these circumstances, that the appeal taken was entirely unnecessary for the protection of the rights of the plaintiffs, and that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.