27 N.Y. St. Rep. 816

Patrick Mahon, Resp’t, v. Nathaniel P. Sewell, App’lt.1

(New York Common Pleas, General Term,

Filed December 2, 1889.)

Appeal—Re-argument.

Where an application for re-argument fails to show that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with an express statute or a controlling decision of the court, it will be denied.

Motion for re-argument.

J. Mb Crone, for motion; P. Mahon, opposed.

Daly, J.

The appellant does not bring himself within the rule for granting re-arguments as laid down by the court. Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283. He does not show that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, nor that the decision is in conflict with an express statute, or with a controlling decision of the court. This is an application to re-argue the case upon the points and authorities upon which it has been already heard and disposed of. The application should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Laeeemoee, Oh. J., and Van Hoesen, J., concur.

Mahon v. Sewell
27 N.Y. St. Rep. 816

Case Details

Name
Mahon v. Sewell
Decision Date
Dec 2, 1889
Citations

27 N.Y. St. Rep. 816

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!