p. 522John F. Talmage, Resp’t, v. Sanitary Security Company, App’lt.(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department,Headnote
Bill op pabticulabs—False bepbesebtatiobs.In an action against a corporation to recover damages for alleged false representations of defendant’s agents, no case is made for the granting of a hill of particulars where no copy of thé answer is furnished to the judge who hears the motion, and there is no statement in the moving affidavit as to what-the answer contains.
Appeal from an order denying a motion for a billl of particulars.
John Berry for app’lt; James McKeen, for resp’t.
—The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was induced to purchase certain stock of defendant by means of falsd representations of authorized agents of the corporation. It did not disclose, however, who the persons were by whom the repretentations were said to have been made. In order to ascertain ■ these names, the defendant moved on special term, for a bill of particulars, upon an affidavit by the president of the corporation stating that the defendant and its officers were ignorant of the names of the persons who it was alleged bad made the false representations relied upon. If this affidavit had been accompanied
p. 523bv proof that the allegations of the complaint in respect to the false representations were denied by the defendant, then a proper case for relief would have been made out, so far as to call upon the special'term to require the plaintiff to give the names of the persons by whom he would seek to show that the misrepresentations had been made; -but no copy of the answer appears to have been furnished to the judge who heard the motion, and there is no statement in the moving affidavit as to what the answer contains.
On this record, we feel constrained to confirm the order appealed from, but without costs, and with leave to defendant to renew its motion for a bill of particulars upon papers showing that the allegations of the complaint in regard to the false representations are denied.