| N.Y. Sup. Ct. | Oct 15, 1828
By the Court,
The bill of particulars was sufficiently definite. It is allowable, when an account has already been delivered, to refer to is generally in the bill of particulars, without restating the items of it. (Peake’s Cas. 172.) Besides, the party, if dissatisfied, should have obtained an order for further particulars, and had no right to consider the plaintiff in default, because he had furnished what he deemed an insufficient bill.
Motion denied with costs.