This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
City Court of New York — General TermJun 1, 1895
13 Misc. 322 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)
13 Misc. 32234 N.Y.S. 462

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Webster v. Fitchburg R.R. Co.

    …215; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Cohn v. Baldwin, 74 id. 346; Groff v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322; Mori v.…


    …The signing of the order by me was merely pro forma and unnecessary, and, therefore, does not disqualify me…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

June, 1895.

Ezekiel Fixman, for appellant.

A.R. Bunnell, for respondent.

Without considering all the questions raised by the appellant, there is one reason why the order appealed from should be reversed.

The affidavit upon which the order is made is by the attorney for the plaintiff.

It has been repeatedly held that an order for a bill of particulars will not be granted on the affidavit of the attorney. Van Olinda v. Hall, 31 N.Y.S. 495; Dueber Co. v. Keystone Co., 21 id. 442; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Proc. Rep. 215.

The order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed, with costs.

CONLAN, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with costs.