Case ID: nj-misc_3/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. .", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALEXANDER O. ZAMBORY v. LOUIS CSIPO.
    Decided March 24, 1925.
    Rehearing — Nothing of Sufficient Materiality to Cause Change of View — Where Nothing Can Be Gained to the Applicant, Neither a New Trial nor Rehearing Will Be Awarded.
    On petition for rehearing.
    Before Justices Trenchard, Minturn and Lloyd.
    Pot the petitioner, Thomas Brown.
    
   Per Curiam. .

Our consideration of the alleged verbal inaccuracies contained in the opinion filed in tills cause, and alleged'as a basis for a rehearing, has not convinced us that there is anything of sufficient materiality or substance contained therein to change our views as expressed in the opinion upon the legal questions involved, as presented in the facts contained in the briefs.

Where nothing can be gained of benefit to the applicant, neither a new trial nor a rehearing will be awarded. Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 17 N. J. L. 478.

The petition, therefore, will be denied.