Case ID: ri_66/html/0169-01.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

Herbert M. Kimball, Admr. vs. Mary Kelly et al.
    
    FEBRUARY 20, 1941.
    Present: Flynn, C. J., Moss, Capotosto, Baker and Condon, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

After the filing of our opinion the complainant, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We have carefully considered said motion and the reasons- assigned therefor.

Charles R. Easton, for complainant.

James J. Fogarty, Jr., Voigt, Wright, Munroe & Clason, for respondents.

However, as the motion contains no matter which was not fully considered and passed upon before the filing of our opinion, the motion is denied and dismissed.