Case Name: Henry Lee, Resp't, v. Edwin H. Price, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-06-06
Citations: 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 358
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Lee, Resp’t, v. Edwin H. Price, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 8
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
Henry Lee, Resp’t, v. Edwin H. Price, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed June 6, 1887.)
Practice—Appeal—When application to go to court op appeals ob POR RE-ARGUMENT DENIED.
Where the testimony objected to on the trial could not have prejudiced the party excepting, the judgment below will not be disturbed, nor will leave to go to the court.of appeals or for re-argument be. granted on the exceptions taken to the admission of such testimony.
An. application for leave to go to the court of appeals or for re-argument of an appeal from the judgment of general term of the city court affirming the judgment of the trial term.
The grounds of the application were the exceptions taken to admission of evidence on the trial.
Marshall P. Stafford, for resp’t; Abbott & Fuller, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Applications of this character are of such frequent occurrence, that it seems unnecessary to reiterate what this court has decided in cases where parties ask for a re-argument or for leave to gó to the court of appeals. In Spofford v. Rowan (6 N. Y. St. Rep., 273) and Weil v. Eckstein (id., 298), we have expressed our views, and a repetition of them would appear to be unnecessary.
We have examined the various exceptions in the case, and in view of the charge of the judge in the court below, think that they were immaterial, or at least that the testimony objected to could not have prejudiced the defendant.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the application should be denied.