Taggart v. Wade et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 13,1888.)
Appeal—Rehearing—Omission from Decree.
A reargument will be granted where it was overlooked, on affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff’s right to redeem from a mortgage foreclosure, and ordering an accounting, that no provision was made for allowance to defendant for repairs and improvements, and for interest paid on a prior mortgage.
Appeal from special term, Kings county.
On motion by Mary G. Rogers, one of the defendants in Taggart v. Wade, 1 N. Y. Supp. 900, for a reargument.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
Martin & Smith and M. W. Divine, for motion. Franklin & Clifford and H. H. Bartlett, for respondent.
Barnard, P. J.
Assuming that the principle upon which the affirmance of the plaintiff’s cause of action depends is right, the interlocutory decree *323appealed from should contain provisions for the allowance to the defendant upon the accounting for repairs and. improvements, and for interest paid on a prior mortgage on the property. The omission of the provision in the decree was overlooked. A general accounting was provided for, but was restricted so as to exclude these items of expenditure, if there be such. The motion for a reargument should therefore be granted, without costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.