Case Name: Ward v. Edesheimer et al.
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-03-07
Citations: 18 N.Y.S. 139
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ward v. Edesheimer et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 18
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Ward v. Edesheimer et al.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County,
General Term,
March 7, 1892.)
Motion for Leave to Appeal—When Denied—Stare Decisis.
Where, in a case originating in the district or city court of New York, judgment, on appeal to the court of common pleas, is rendered for plaintiff, expressly on the authority of a certain decision of the court of appeals, and no other ground is relied on by defendant, in a motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals, than the hope or expectation of obtaining a modification of such decision, the motion will be denied.
Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
Denied.
For decision on appeal, see 17 27. Y. Supp. 173.
Argued before Bookstaver, Bischoff, and Pryor, JJ.
Benno Loewy, for the motion. C. A. Hart, opposed.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This motion is based on a novel ground. It is conceded that Gardner v. Keteltas, 3 Hill, 330, is decisive of the case; yet counsel de sires to go to the court of appeals on the question, hoping to get some modification of that decision. But we are referred to no authority as a foundation for such hope, nor has our attention been called to any principle of law which could be invoked as the basis for such an experiment. The case cited was argued by Gen. Anthon and Mr. Charles O'Connor, and decided by the old supreme court of the state, Chief Justice Kelson writing the opinion, and the principle there announced has been followed ever since. See Insurance Co. v. Scott, 2 Hilt. 552; Meeks v. Bowerman, 1 Daly, 100; McKinney v. Holt, 8 Hun, 339; Crooked Lake v. Keuka Co., 37 Hun, 14; Gilhooley v. Washington, 4 N. Y. 217; Johnson v. Oppenheim, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. R. 416, affirmed, 55 N. Y. 280; Rotter v. Goerlitz, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 12 N. Y. Supp. 210. The motion must therefore be denied, with $10 costs.