TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gray v. Shepard

Gray v. Shepard, 13 N.Y.S. 27 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 16, 1891
Judges
Brady
Citations
13 N.Y.S. 2736 N.Y. St. Rep. 6101891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 941
Headnotes
Bill of Particulars of Defense—General Denial. Plaintiff will not be entitled to a bill of particulars, when the answer, though containing matter affirmative in form, amounts simply to a general denial. '
Summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Frank S. Gray against Elliot F. Shepard. The complaint alleges that on the 18th of April, 1888, the plaintiff and defendant made an agreement in writing whereby the plaintiff undertook to render bis services to the defendant, in or about a certain publication known as the “New York Mail and Express, ” from the 13th day of May, 1888, for the term of five years, at the yearly salary of $6,000, and that defendant employed him upon said terms. The plaintiff further avers that he duly entered upon his employment under said agreement, and duly discharged the duties thereof until the 4th day of January, 1890, and that he has ever since been and still is ready and willing to perform all conditions of said agreement upon his part to be performed. He further avers that the defendant then refused and still refuses to allow him so to do or to pay him therefor, to his damage in the sum of $35,000, for which sum he demands judgment, with costs. The answer of the defendant denies that he made any contract with the plaintiff, except one which is annexed to the answer, and in substance alleges that the plaintiff did not keep and perform his agreement according to the terms thereof, and the true intent and meaning thereof, to the great injury of said defendant; that while he remained in such employment he proved to be incompetent and unable to do the work assigned to him under said contract, and did not satisfactorily do and perform the same, and proved to be incompatible in his habits and manners to and with said defendant and other persons in the employ of said defendant in connection with the publication of said newspaper and its various editions; and it, in like manner, negatives the performance of the various conditions of the contract, by averring, in substance, that the plaintiff did not keep and perform said contract, but violated the same. A motion by plaintiff for an order that defendant furnish him with a bill of particulars of said matters of defense was denied, and plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Brady

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Brady, T.

The answer, in an expansive manner, contains simply a general denial; and therefore the case is not one for a bill of particulars. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11932: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Mullin143 Misc. 256 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  2. Strebell v. J. H. Rubber Co.2 Misc. 450 (1893)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Mullin143 Misc. 256 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  2. Strebell v. J. H. Rubber Co.2 Misc. 450 (1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list