Case Name: Arnold Heerwagen et al., Resp'ts, v. Charles L. Ritzmann, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12-02
Citations: 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 886
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arnold Heerwagen et al., Resp’ts, v. Charles L. Ritzmann, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 70
Pages: 886–886

Head Matter:
Arnold Heerwagen et al., Resp’ts, v. Charles L. Ritzmann, App’lt.
N. Y. C. P.
December 2, 1895.
Motion for reárgument of appeal.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
—- The present motion does not conform to rule 16 of the general term of this court, with regard to motions for reargument? Counsel in effect simply desires to present a more elaborate argument npon the exception which the general term deemed fatal to the judgment, and it does not appear that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked. Motion denied, with $10 costs.