
    George Rice, Resp’t, v. John D. Rockefeller, et al., Appl’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed November 24, 1888.
    
    Bill of particulars—When required—Acts which are the foundation OF THE ALLEGATION TO BE SPECIFIED.
    The answer averred that the plaintiff has used efforts to improve the business of the companies connected with ihe Standard Oil Trust, and has instituted litigation, and has suits pending against certain of the companies, and is now seeking to have further litigation instituted for the purpose of declaring said trust agreement void, and to annul the charter 'of the companies whose stock is held in trust. Held, that these averments, have reference to particular acts in which it is charged that the plaintiff has been engaged, and that it was proper to require a bill of particulars of the acts which are designed to be the foundation of these allegations.
    Appeal from an order directing the service of a bill of particulars of the defendant’s claims, contained in the seventh subdivision of their answer.
    
      Joseph H. Choate, for appl’ts; Edward T. Bartlett, for resp’t.
   Daniels, J.

The object of the action is to secure the transfer upon the books of the Standard Oil Trust, six shares of stock owned in it by the plaintiff in the action, and for the dividends accruing upon these shares while he has been the holder thereof. The seventh subdivision of the answer alleged, among' other things, that the plaintiff had diligently and persistently sought to become acquainted with the methods of business and private affairs of the companies in the trust, and of the trustees: that he had caused it to be made known to the defendants that he would cease to institute and stir up litigation, and to harrass and annoy them, in case the sum of $550,000 should be paid to him for refining property; and that his purpose in demanding a transfer of the certificates was not in good faith, but to become a beneficiary under the trust, to obtain a pretext for further vexatious and harrassing litigation with the defendants, and to extort money from them. These are allegations which have plainly very little, if anything to do with the right of the plaintiff on which the action has become dependent.

And it is nowise important to the plaintiff to be apprised more fully of the particulars of these statements, for the trial of the action, than he has been by the answer itself. As to these general averments, including no specific, or particular thing, alleged against the plaintiff, which it is important for him to understand more fully in the litigation, a bill of particulars was unnecessary.

But the answer has further averred that the plaintiff has used efforts to injure the business of the companies, and has instituted litigation, and has suits pending against certain of the companies, and is now seeking to have further litigation instituted for the purpose of declaring said trust agreement void, and tó annul the charters of the companies, whose stock was held in trust.

These averments have reference to particular acts in which it is charged that the plaintiff has been engaged. And the answer is so general that it has not pointed to or ■distinguished them in such a manner as to enable him to understand what the efforts or acts are which are designed to be the foundation of these allegations. As to them it may be important that he should be intelligently advised and informed before the trial can take place. And if he has been concerned in them no difficulty whatever will arise to prevent the defendants from informing him precisely to what these general allegations refer. As to them the defendants will be able to make and serve a bill of particulars, as that has been directed in the order. So far it seems to have been well founded. But as to the other directions contained in it, the allegations are not directed to any particular acts concerning which it is or will be important for the plaintiff to know any more than has been stated to enable him intelligently and understandingly to try the action. The order should be modified by striking out the first paragraph directing the service of a bill of par-, ticulars, and also the first and second sentences of the fourth paragraph, and retaining the second and third paragraphs of the order, directing the defendants to serve the bill of particulars to the extent already indicated. And this modification should be without costs of the appeal to either party.

Van Brunt, P. J., and Bartlett, J., concur.  