
    (27 Misc. Rep. 397.)
    WHITE v. WEST.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, Onondaga County.
    May, 1899.)
    Bill ov PARTtooLAns—Necessity.
    In an action to recover for specific services rendered for a fixed price, defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars.
    Action by Ernest I. White against George West. On motion by defendant for a bill of particulars.
    Denied.
    
      D. A. Pierce, for the motion.
    E. I. White, opposed.
   HISCOCK, J.

The motion for bill of particulars is denied. The action is not brought to recover upon a quantum meruit for services and disbursements claimed to have been rendered and made, and in which event it would be material for defendant to know .with particularity what the services and disbursements were. The gist of plaintiff’s claim is that defendant hired him for a fixed sum to render definite services, and that he has fulfilled his part of the contract. The material question, under the complaint, in this respect will be whether plaintiff did “assist in and about the reorganization of the National Wall-Plaster Company of America, and the adjustment of its affairs, and also in finding purchasers for certain stock of the said company.” If he did this, it will not be specially important just what the details of his work were; and upon the other hand, if he does not establish his contract and the fulfillment thereof in this respect, it will not avail him that he rendered other services and made other disbursements.

Motion denied.  