Case ID: ny-st-rep_45/html/0102-02.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

Oscar Compton, Resp’t, v. John D. Heissenbuttel et al., App’lts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 7, 1892.)
    
    Appeal—Rbargument.
    Reargument of an appeal will not Be allowed for the sole purpose of reviewing the conclusion of a former general term on a question of construction which depends largely on the evidence.
    Motion for reargument.
    
      Hyland & Zabriskie, for motion; Putney, Bishop & Slade, opposed.
   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 are 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 ten dollars costs.

Bookstaver, Bischoff and Pryor, JJ., concur.