
    SUPREME COURT.
    George F. Muller, respondent, agt. The Bush and Denslow Manufacturing Company, appellant.
    
      Bill of particulars—Not allowed in suit for damages to property negligently inflicted — Code of CUvil Procedure, section 531.
    A bill of particulars should not be allowed of the damages claimed in a suit arising from injuries negligently inflicted Where the plaintiff’s house was injured by an alleged negligent explosion in defendant’s oil works:
    
      Meld, that a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s demand was properly denied.
    
      Second Department, General Term, December, 1884.
    
      jBefore Barnard, üh. J., and Dykman, J.
    
    This suit was to recover the damages to the plaintiff’s house, located in the city of Brooklyn, from an alleged negligent explosion in defendant’s oil works in the same neighborhood. The -defendants, under section 531 of the Code, moved at special term, before justice Bartlett, for a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim upon affidavits stating, among other things, the merits of their defense; that the defendants possessed no knowledge concerning the character of the property injured, •neither could they obtain it after diligent inquiry, and could not safely proceed to trial without the particulars sought for. The plaintiff, in opposition, showed that the defendants had fully examined the injuries before the motion, had been given full opportunity so to do, and knew as much about it as the plaintiff, and further that the builders had not yet repaired the injuries as the premises were occupied by a tailor who being then in his busy season could not be disturbed and the plaintiff could not, therefore, give his exact damages.
    Justice Bartlett denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.
    
      
      Alfred B. Gruikshank, for the appellant, claimed:
    I. That defendants were entitled to the particulars to inform them of the precise limit of the plaintiff’s claim (Steeblinger agt. Lockhouse, 21 Hun, 457; Tilton agt. Beecher, 59 N. Y., 184; Dwight agt. Germania Co., 22 Hun, 173; People agt. Nolan, 10 Abb. N. C., 478, 479; Matthews agt. Hubbard, 47 N. Y., 428).
    II. Bills of particulars have been granted in similar cases (Robinson agt. Corner, 13 Hun, 291; Hayes agt. Bush, MS., Special Term ; Leigh agt. Atwater, 2 Abb. N. C., 419; Gee agt. Chase, 12 Hun, 630; Wetmore agt. Jenny, 1 Barb., 53; Miller agt. Kent, 60 How., 388; Mayor agt. Marriner, 49 id., 36; Eberhardt agt. Schuster, 6 Abb. N. C., 141; Friedberger agt. Bates, 24 Hun, 375).
    III. The objection that plaintiff is not yet possessed of full information is no answer to the motion (People agt. Nolan, Id).
    
    IV. The discretion to grant the motion rests finally with the general term (Miller agt. Kent, Id.; Security Bank, agt. Nat. Bank, 2 Hun, 287; Jeffries agt. McKellop, 2 id., 351.)
    
      Henderson Benedict, for respondent, claimed:
    I. That according to the decisions in this state, in the United States and in England, a bill of particulars should not be granted of damages in negligence cases whether the injuries be to person or property (Bernhard agt. Dyer, 3 Law Bull., 92; Dooley agt. Royal B. P. Co., 1 id., 18; Murphy agt. Kip, 1 Duer, 659; People agt. Marquette, 39 Mich., 437; Retallick agt. Hawkes, 1 Meeson & W., 573; Peters agt. Philadelphia, 12 W. N. C. [Pa.], 51; Wicks agt. MacNamara, 3 H. & N., 568 ; 27 L. J. Exch., 419; Stannard agt. Ullithorne, 3 Bing. N. C., 326; Walker agt. Fuller, 29 Ark., 448).
    II. The defendants were allowed full opportunity to examine the injuries, availed themselves of the privilege before the motion, and knew as much as the plaintiff about it. This alone bars the motion (Depew agt. Leal, 5 Duer, 663; Powers 
      agt. Hughes, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct., 482 ; Young agt. DeMott, 1 Barb., 30; Blackie agt. Wilson, 6 Bosw., 681).
    III. Defendants should have moved to make the complaint more definite. The evidence can he obtained by an examination before trial. The order was discretionary and should be affirmed.
   Dykmaw, J.

— The plaintiff has commenced this action to recover damages sustained by reason of injuries to his house from an explosion of the defendants oil works. The complain t states the injuries with considerable particularity, and the amount of damage sustained. The defendant desiring a bill of particulars of the items of damage made a motion therefor to the special term which was denied, and an appeal is brought from the order of denial. This is not a case where the plaintiff should be required to furnish particulars. The action is for damages which the plaintiff cannot specify with certainty; the amount will depend on proof to be furnished after examination of the injuries and may well consist of the testimony of experts.

Great caution should be exercised by the courts in requiring parties to furnish particulars in actions for damages resulting from negligence. It is usually impossible for a plaintiff to know with any degree of precision what his proof will be and the bill of particulars would in most cases of that character be an instrument of embarrassment and injustice. In this case the discretion of the court was wisely exercised and the order should be affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, O. J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  