Case ID: misc_6/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT — GENERAL TERM,
    JANUARY, 1894.
    Naylor et al. v. Pelly.
    Appeal from so much of au order as denied a motion by ■defendant to resettle findings of fact and law and the judgment.
    
      Edward S. Clinch, for plaintiffs (respondents).
    
      Birdseye, Cloyd & Bayliss (Lucien Birdseye, of counsel), for defendant (appellant).
   Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and -disbursements.

Present: Freedman and G-ildersleeve, JJ„