History
  • No items yet
midpage
Miller v. Kent
60 How. Pr. 388
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1880
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We see no good reason why the bill of particulars should not have been ordered. A broker, who is the agent of his client, is and ought to be required to show fully and specifically each item of the account which he charges against his client. In this case nothing is furnished but a gross sum amounting to $/T,/T24.19, with which the plaintiff is charged as his share of the losses upon the purchases and sales of lard, on a joint account between the plaintiffs and others, under a contract described in the affidavit. Each of the parties to such an account is entitled to know and to have presented to him, when a demand is made for a loss supposed or real, the items which make up such loss, and to be given an opportunity not only to inspect and ascertain the correctness of the same, but to controvert such items whenever it becomes necessary.

The order appealed from should be reversed, and an order entered requiring the service of a bill of particulars.

Case Details

Case Name: Miller v. Kent
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1880
Citation: 60 How. Pr. 388
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.