Hyperlawhypertext legal database Eagle Tube Co. v. Edward Barr Co. 11 N.Y.S. 712

← Cases

Eagle Tube Co. v. Edward Barr Co.

11 N.Y.S. 712 Court N.Y.C.P. Decision date 1890-12-01 English

Delivered by Bischoff, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 712
Eagle Tube Co. v. Edward Barr Co.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
December 1, 1890.)

Headnote

Appeal—Practice—Rehearing.
A motion for reargument of an appeal must be denied where the grounds for reversal urged received due consideration in the decision, and none of the grounds for which a rehearing is allowed, under the rules of the court, are shown.
Motion for reargument of an appeal. For the decision on the appeal, see 10 IST. Y. Supp. 113.
Argued before Daly, C. J., and Bischoff and Pryor, JJ.
A. C. Smith, for appellant. Michael H. Cardozo, for respondent.

The appeal herein was heard by the general term of this court, in June, 1890, before Larremore, C. J., and Bookstaver, J., the latter writing an opinion for affirmance, concurred in by the chief justice; and upon an examination of the opinion, and of the case on appeal, it is apparent that the several grounds urged on behalf of appellants for reversal received due consideration. Buie 16 of the general term rules of this court permits a reargument of an appeal when it appears clearly “that some question decisive of the case, and which was presented by counsel upon the re- - argument, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistent with some statute, or with a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not called, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel;” and an inspection of appellant’s papers on this motion does not disclose any of the grounds upon which a reargument may be had as above provided. Appellant’s motion for a reargument of the appeal should be denied. All concur.