Majority
p. 1080HOPKINS v. RATHBUN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 21, 1899.)
Headnote
Pleading—Bill oe Particulars.In an action to recover for legal services the answer was a general denial, and contained an allegation “that all legal services ever rendered to defendant, or any services of any kind rendered to defendant," by plaintiff’s assignor, have been fully paid for by defendant.’’ Held, that the allegations of payment refer to services other than those alleged in the complaint, and a hill of particulars of the payments is not necessary. ■
Appeal from special term.
Action by Frank Hopkins against Sarah A. Rathbun. From an order requiring defendant to serve a bill of particulars of payments, she appealed.
Reversed.
p. 1081Argued before PAEKEE, P. J., and LANDON, HEERICK, PUTNAM, and MERWIN, JJ.
David N. Heller, for appellant.
G. L. Smith, for respondent.
The complaint asks to recover the reasonable value of legal services rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff’s assignor at her request. The answer is a general denial and an allegation “that all legal services ever rendered to her, or any services of any kind rendered to her, by the plaintiff’s assignor, have been fully paid for by this defendant.” This is not qj. allegation of payment for the services specified in the complaint, since the answer denies such services, instead of admitting them, and thus necessarily refers to other services for which the plaintiff does not seek to recover. Hence no bill of particulars was needful.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs.