
    S. Liebmann’s Sons Brewing Company, Respondent, v. Richard Cody and Others, Appellants.
    
      Action upon an account—when an unverified bill of particulars attached to a/nd made part of a verified complaint is sufficient.
    
    "When, in an action upon an account, an unverified bill of particulars, attached to a verified complaint, is by the terms of the complaint made a part thereof, the . provisions of section 531 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that in case a pleading, alleging an account, does not set out the items thereof, the pleader “must deliver to the adverse party within ten days after a written demand thereof a copy of the account, which, if the pleading is verified,” must also be verified, do not entitle the defendants to demand a further bill of particulars.
    Appeal by the defendants, Richard Cody and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Kings on the 29th day of June, 1897," denying the defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars.
    The action was brought to recover a balance due upon the purchase price of certain lager beer, which the plaintiff claimed to have sold and delivered to the defendants between certain dates.
    The complaint, which was verified, alleged that “A bill "of particulars of plaintiff’s claim is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint.”
    The bill of particulars, which was not itself verified, comprised an itemized statement showing the amount, date and price of each delivery and the date and amount of each payment made by the defendants.
    Section 531 of the Code of Civil Procedure, referred to in the .opinion, provides as follows: “It is not necessary for a party to set forth in a pleading the items of an account therein alleged; but in that case he must deliver to the adverse party within ten days after a written demand thereof, a copy of the account, which, if the pleading is verified, must be verified by his affidavit to the effect that he believes it to be true * *
    
      Henry Daily, Jr., for the appellants.
    
      Edward V. Slauson, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

.Assuming that an account is alleged in the complaint within the. meaning of section 531 of the' Code of Civil Procedure, the copy attached to the complaint was a. sufficient compliance with the requirement of that section. The verification- was also sufficient, inasmuch as the account was expressly made a part, of the complaint, which was duly verified. '

F© further -bill of particulars is necessary, or would be appropriate. There is ho allegation or proof that the defendants’ officers or agents are ignorant of what the plaintiff will attempt to prove as to the quantities of beer-sold, the dates of. the deliveries or the prices charged.

The motion was properly denied, and the order of the Special Term should be affirmed.

All concurred.

' Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  