Case Name: CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. WORCESTER CYCLE MFG. CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1898-12-05
Citations: 91 F. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. WORCESTER CYCLE MFG. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 91
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. WORCESTER CYCLE MFG. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.
December 5, 1898.)
Equity Practice—Rehearing—New Evidence.
A court will not grant a rehearing and leave to introduce new evidence wbicb was known to counsel at the time the cause was, at their request, considered and decided on the merits.
On Motion for Rehearing and for Leave to Introduce New Evidence.
For former opinion, see 90 Fed. 584.
C. Walter Artz, for receiver.
Butler, Notman, Joline & Mynderse and Michael EL Gardozo, for complainant.
Parkins & Jackson, for-Nash and others, intervening creditors.
Seymour C. Loomis, for Goodrich and others, intervening creditors.
A. L. Teel, for Gilliam Mfg. Co. and others, intervening creditors.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, District Judge.
The motion for leave to introduce new evidence and for a rehearing is denied for the following reasons: The evidence sought to be introduced is not newly-discovered evidence, but must have been actually known to counsel before the final hearing. The question as to whether the mortgage in suit was valid was distinctly raised by the answer and on the argument, and thereupon counsel stated in open court that they wished a final decision upon the evidence then before the court. No sufficient grounds have been shown why this court should violate the settled rule of practice uniformly followed in this circuit.