
    GRUNSPAN v. WALLING.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    February 11, 1910.)
    Pleading (§ 327)—Bill of Particulars.
    Plaintiff cannot be compelled by a bill of particulars to elect on which promise she will rely.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 994; Dec. Dig. § 327.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Anna B. Grunspan against William E. Walling. Broman order granting a motion for an amended bill of particulars, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and motion denied.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE,. SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
    Arthur M. Wickwire, for appellant;
    Emil E. Fuchs, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The court could not compel the plaintiff by a bill of particulars to elect on which promise she should rely.

The order should, therefore, be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.  