Case ID: nys_18/html/0952-02.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

Compton, Respondent, v. Heissenbuttel et al., Appellants.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County,
    
    
      General Term.
    
    March 7, 1892.)
    Motion by defendants (appellants) for reargument. Denied.
    For decision on appeal, see 16 N. Y. Supp. 524.
    Argued before Bookstaver, Bischoff, and Pryor, JJ.
    
      Hyland & ZabrisMe, for appellants. Putney, Bishop <6 Blade, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

It is not contended that any authority or question decisive •of this case was overlooked by this court in rendering its decision on the appeal herein. On the contrary, the opinion shows that the question raised on •the motion was the very question discussed. We áre asked to review the •conclusion of a former general term on a question of construction which depends largely on the evidence. If such practice were encouraged, there would be no end to litigation. The motion must be denied, with $10 costs.