
    (85 App. Div. 319.)
    HEIDENREICH v. HIRSH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    July 7, 1903.)
    1. Agency — Accounting—Bill of Particulars.
    Where, in an action to recover a balance on collections made by defendant for plaintiff, defendant admitted that he had collected money as agent for plaintiff and deducted his compensation, but denied that he had collected the amount claimed and that he had failed to pay plaintiff the balance due him, plaintiff was entitled to an accounting, and it was error to require him to serve a bill of particulars.
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by John Heidenreich against Simon Hirsh. From an order directing plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars, he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
    William L. Mathot, for appellant.
    Samuel Sturtz, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant admits that he collected money as agent of the plaintiff, but denies that he collected the amount alleged; admits that he deducted his compensation, but denies that he had failed to pay the balance due to the plaintiff. This conceded relation between the plaintiff and the defendant entitled the plaintiff to compel the defendant to account, and for that reason the plaintiff should not be required to specify the items of the moneys collected by the defendant for the plaintiff and for which the defendant has failed to account.

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