Hyperlawhypertext legal database Birge v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co. 17 N.Y.S. 946

← Cases

Birge v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co.

17 N.Y.S. 946 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1892-02-12 English

Delivered by Mayham, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 946
Birge, Respondent, v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co. et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
February 12, 1892.)

Headnote

On motion for reargument.
Denied.
For decision on appeal, see 16 H. Y. Supp. 596.
.Argued before Mayham, Putnam, and Herrick, JJ.
p. 947
Daniel Magone, {Thomas Spratt, of counsel,) for appellants. A. D. Wales and George R. Malby, for respondent.

I see no beneficial purpose that can be attained by a reargument of this case at general term of this court. The questions of law were fully considered on the hearing before this court, and a conclusion reached by a majority of the court, which, on a reargument, would in all probability be adhered to, especially as the court is not now constituted as it was at the time of the former argument and decision. Nor do I think any time or expense would be saved by such reargument, as the questions involved will not probably be satisfactorily settled, except upon the decision of the court of appeals. I think, therefore, that the motion for reargument should be denied.