Birge v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co. — 43 N.Y. St. Rep. 967

Majority

p. 967

James C. Birge, Resp’t, v. The Berlin Iron Bridge Co. et al., App’lts.

Headnote

Motion for reargument.

Daniel Magone (Thomas Spratt, of counsel), for app’lts; A. D. Wales and George B. Malby, for resp’t.

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, wine., 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.

J think, therefore, that the motion for reaxgument should be denied.

Herrick, J., concurs.