Case ID: ny-st-rep_34/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bischoef, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Eagle Tube Company, App’lt, v. The Edward Barr Company, Resp't.
    
    
      (New York Common Pleas,
    
    
      General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 1, 1890.)
    
    Appeal—Reargument.
    Where it does not appear that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistent with some statute or with a controlling decision to which the attention of the court was not called through neglect or inadvertence of counsel, a reargument will not he ordered.
    Motion by appellant for reargument of appeal.
    
      A. 0. Smith, for app’lt; Michael H. Gardozo, for resp’t.
    
      
       See 32 N. Y. State Rep., 299.
    
   Bischoef, J.

The appeal herein was heard by the general term of this court in May, 1890, before Larremore, Oh. J., and Bookstaver, J., the latter writing an opinion for affirmance, concurred in by the chief justice, and upon an examination of the opinion, and of the case on appeal, it is apparent that the several grounds urged on behalf of appellants for reversal received due consideration.

Rale 16 of the general term rules of this court permits a re-argument of an appeal, when it appears clearly “that some question decisive of the case and which was presented by counsel upon the argument has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistent with some statute, or with a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not called through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel,” and an inspection of appellant’s papers on this motion does not disclose any of the grounds upon which a reargument may be had as above provided.

Appellant’s motion for a reargument of the appeal should be denied.

Daly, Ch. J., and Pryor, J., concur.