Case ID: ny-st-rep_6/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Hackett, Resp’t, v. James Stanley, Impl’d, etc., App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 7, 1887.)
    I. Reargument—When ordered.
    The court may order a reargument of an appeal on its own motion.
    2. Same—Motion for leave to appeal to court of appeals.
    Where on a motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals, thsjQ seems to be doubt whether certain later decisions than the one reli d upon bv the court in its former decision had been applied in the onstruction of the agreement in question, a reargument isaS ordered, although the party-moving for leave to appeal to court of appeals had not applied for it.
    Motion.for leave to appeal to court of appeals.
    
      Thomas C. Ennever, tor resp’t; Alexander & Green, or app’lt.
   Allen, J.

The case of Leggett v. Hyde (58 N. Y., 272) cited by the learned judge in Winston v. Gorham & Stanley as controlling appears to be distinguised in all the subsequent cases in the court of appeals, in which agreements similar in character to the one in this case, have been construed.

As there seems to be some doubt whether these later decisions, viz: Richardson v. Hughitt (76 N. Y., 55); Curry v. Fowler (87 id., 33); Burnett v. Snyder (76 id., 344); Eager v. Crawford (76 id., 97); Cassidy v. Hall, (97 id., 159), have been applied in the construction of the agreement of January 23, 1885,1 think a re-argument should be ordered, although the defendant has not applied for it. The court may however,, on its own motion, order a reargument of an appeal.

The application for leave to go to the court of appeals is denied, and a. reargument at the March., general term is ordered.

Bookstaver, J., concurs.