
    Mary J. Mather, Plaintiff, v. William A. Mather, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
    October, 1898.)
    Confession of judgment — Insufficient statement.
    A statement, for a confession of judgment, which alleges that the defendant “ has from time to time borrowed of the plaintiit money and there is now due and to become due to this plaintiff from the defendant aforesaid the sum of forty-two hundred dollars ($4,200) for cash borrowed and interest thereon for which plaintiff holds two promissory notes of this defendant copies of which are hereunto set forth ” ■ is insufficient, within section 1274 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there is no concise statement “ of the facts out of which the debt arose ” from which a person could properly determine the amount due.
    This was a motion by creditors of the defendant to set aside the judgment by confession herein. The written statement under section 1274 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which the judgment was entered was as follows, viz.: “ The defendant has from time to time borrowed of the plaintiff money and there is now due and to become due to this plaintiff from the defendant aforesaid the sum of Forty-two hundred dollars ($4200) for cash borrowed and interest thereon for which plaintiff holds two promissory notes of this defendant copies of which are hereunto set forth viz.: ” two promissory notes by the defendant to the plaintiff, one for $2,600 dated April 1st, 1897, and the other for $1,600 dated April 1st, 1898, each payable in one year, being then set out. The statement was verified May 14th, 1898.
    H. B. Bradbury for motion.
    John W. Furman opposed.
   Gaynor J.:

The statement for judgment is insufficient. The requirement that it must state concisely the facts out of which the debt arose ” (Code Civ. Pro. sec. 1274) was not fulfilled. The statement is principally of legal conclusions instead of precise facts by day, date and amount from which the legal conclusions could be drawn that the defendant loaned specific sums to the plaintiff, and that of the same the sum confessed has not been paid back. The statement that “ there is now due and to become due ” a sum named is a conclusion of law, and there being no statements of fact from which such conclusion may be calculated and drawn it is nugatory. There should be a statement of facts so precise that any one could therefrom figure out and state the amount unpaid and calculate the interest thereon. Wo one can read the varying decisions upon the subject with entire satisfaction, but I think the foregoing must be the rule (Wood v. Mitchell, 117 N. Y. 439).

The promissory notes without a statement of facts showing an indebtedness for the amounts for which they were given are insufficient (Chappel v. Chappel, 12 N. Y. 215); though it seems that an account stated without any facts to show what the indebtedness arose out of is sufficient (Critten v. Vredenburgh, 151 N. Y. 536). I do not for the moment perceive the distinction.

The motion is granted.  