Case Name: James C. Birge, Resp't, v. The Berlin Iron Bridge Co. et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-12
Citations: 43 N.Y. St. Rep. 967
Docket Number: 
Parties: James C. Birge, Resp’t, v. The Berlin Iron Bridge Co. et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 43
Pages: 967–967

Head Matter:
James C. Birge, Resp’t, v. The Berlin Iron Bridge Co. et al., App’lts.
Motion for reargument.
Daniel Magone (Thomas Spratt, of counsel), for app’lts; A. D. Wales and George B. Malby, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Mayham, J.
I see no beneficial purpose that can be attained by a reargument of this case at general term of this court.
The questions of law were fully considered on the hearing before this court and a conclusion reached by a majority of the court, wine., on a reargument would in all probability be adhered to, especially as the court is not now constituted as it was at the time of the former argument and decision. Nor do I think any time or expense would be saved by such reargument, as the questions involved will not probably be satisfactorily settled, except upon the decision of the court of appeals.
J think, therefore, that the motion for reaxgument should be denied.
Herrick, J., concurs.