Majority
p. 609Frank Ross, Ancillary Adm’r, Appl’t, v. Nathaniel P. Hamlin, Impl’d, Resp’t. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, Filed January 16, 1891.)
Headnote
Pleading—Okdeb. to make definite.On appeal by one of two defendants from an order denying motion for a bill of particulars of certain contracts set forth in the complaint, the general term modified the order so as to require a bill of part of the particulars. Thereafter, on motion of the other defendant an order was made requiring the complaint to be made more definite as to certain provisions of such contracts. Held, that while the order enlarged somewhat on that of the general term, it did not injure the plaintiff, as he could as easily comply with it as with that of the general term.
Appeal from order requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain, by giving certain provisions of the contracts referred to in the complaint as the basis of defendant’s liability.
G. B. Adams, for app’lt; Theodore F. Sanxay, for resp’t.
Although we are of the opinion that the court below have somewhat enlarged the decision of the
p. 610
term, in respect to the same complaint upon the" appeal of Willett, 34 N. Y. State Rep., 121, 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 to protect the rights of the plaintiffs, and that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Beady and Daniels, JJ., concur.