Case ID: ny-st-rep_56/html/0285-01.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

Richard Siegman, Resp’t, v. Sarah W. Keeler, App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 4, 1893.)
    
    Appeal—Re- argument.
    The requirements of rule 16 of general term, common pleas, stated and enforced.
    Motion for re-argument of appeal.
   Per Curiam.

A motion for re-argument is allowed only where it appears 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 drawn through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel Rule 16, Geni. Term, N. Y. Com. Pis.

The opinion handed down at the time of the decision of the appeal herein, 4 Mis., 528; 54 St. Rep., 125, refutes the claim that either of the grounds above specified exists, and the plain purport of this motion is no other than to secure a second hearing upon the same points and facts which have been exhaustively examined and discussed in the opinion of the court.

Motion for re-argument denied, with costs.