Case ID: ny-st-rep_43/html/0328-01.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

Charles R. Johnson, App’lt, v. The Union Switch & Signal Co., Resp’t.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed March 8, 1892.)
    
    Motion for re-argument
    
      George W Miller, for app’lt; Jno. W. Houston, for resp’t.
    
      
       See 43 St. Rep., 337.
    
   Per Curiam.

We have carefully read the papers submitted' to us on a motion for a re-argument of this case. When we-decided the case there was no mistake or misapprehension as to the .pleadings or the evidence. We simply decided, and intended, to decide, that the plaintiff could not recover under the eighth, clause of the contract. We did not determine and had no occasion to determine his present rights, if any, under the third and fourth clauses of the contract.

The motion for a re-argument must be denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur.