Samuel W. Ehrich, Appellant, v. Leo C. Dessar, Respondent

Samuel W. Ehrich, Appellant, v. Leo C. Dessar, Respondent. First Department, January 8, 1909. Pleading — action to recover for services rendered — bill of particulars denied. A complaint which alleges that the plaintiff rendered services at the defendant’s request “ as manager, adviser, agent and representative” with reference to certain mining properties, states a single cause of action for services rendered, the allegations as. to the plaintiff’s relation to the defendant being merely descriptive. Where the defendant, moving for a bill of particulars before answer, alleges that he has no knowledge of the plaintiff's claim or of any services rendered and will deny the same, he is not entitled to particulars. A bill of particulars will not be granted merely because it may suggest defenses. Appeal by the plaintiff, Samuel W. Elirich, from an order, of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of October, 1908. Achilles H. Kohn, for the appellant. Franklin Bien, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Scott, J. :] Scott, J. : Plaintiff appeals from an order requiring him to give a bill of particulars before answer. The complaint is most general in form, alleging that between certain dates the plaintiff rendered services to defendant, at his request, as manager, adviser, agent arid representative at the city of New York and elsewhere with reference to certain mining properties. The order is made upon the theory that plaintiff is uniting four causes of action claiming separately for services as manager, as adviser, as agent and as representative, and requires him to give separate items of services rendered in each capacity. The complaint, as it stands,, does not require this construction. There is but a single causé of action stated for services, and the statement of the various relations which the plaintiff bore to the defendant is merely descriptive and, in fact, is surplusage. There was no ground for granting the motion before answer. The defendant does not require a bill of particulars in order to frame his answer, for he distinctly states that he has no knowledge of any such claim as plaintiff makes, or of any services rendered, and will deny the same. Tiie suggestion that a bill of particulars will be required because it may suggest defenses of which defendant is not now aware has ■ the merit of novelty, but no other merit which appeals to us. The order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ., concurred. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.