Case Name: Joseph L. Spofford, Resp't, v. David N. Rowan, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-04-14
Citations: 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 273
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph L. Spofford, Resp’t, v. David N. Rowan, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 6
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Joseph L. Spofford, Resp’t, v. David N. Rowan, App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed April 14, 1887.)
1. Appeal—Application for leave to go to court of appeals—Necessary GROUNDS OF SUCH AN APPLICATION.
The grounds of such an application must show either that the construction of a public statute is involved; that questions of law are of public importance or affect large interests; that the principles involved are of importance to others, or that a number of cases depend upon the decision of the case at bar.
E. P. Johnson, for resp’t; D. N. Rowan, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Larremore, Ch. J.
This is an apphcation for leave to-appeal to the court of appeals.
This court has repeatedly held that the grounds of such apphcation show either of the fohowing facts: That the construction of a public statute is involved; that the questions of law are of public importance or affect large public interests; that the principles involved are also of importance to others than the parties to the suit; that a number of cases are depending upon the decision of the case at bar. Butterfield v. Radde, 38 Supr. Ct. Rep., 44; see also Josuez v. Murphy, 6 Daly, 404; Annan v. Ritchie, id. 331.
The rulings in Curley v. Tomlinson (5 Daly, 283) and. Mount v. Mitchell (32 N. Y., 702) as to motions for a re-argument apply with equal force to an apphcation of this character.
It is not shown that any statute governing the case or any decision controlling it has been overlooked. The judgment in question was affirmed by the general term of the-city court and also by the general term of this court, and we do not think, under all the circumstances, that the case is one which would authorize us to grant this apphcation.
The motion is therefore denied.
Van Hoesen, J., concurs in result; Daly, J., concurs.