Gage v. Lippman

New York Court of Common Pleas

Gage v. Lippman

31 N.Y.S. 1127, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 872

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided December 3, 1894·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss the appeal) should be denied. The appellants served the printed cases on appeal several years ago, and the respondents could have brought the case on for hearing at any time. The appellants urge that the respondents have violated their stipulation to mark the printed case settled, as containing all the evidence. This allegation is not denied. The cause had better be brought on at the next term, and disposed of in the ordinary way.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss the appeal) should be denied. The appellants served the printed cases on appeal several years ago, and the respondents could have brought the case on for hearing at any time. The appellants urge that the respondents have violated their stipulation to mark the printed case settled, as containing all the evidence. This allegation is not denied. The cause had better be brought on at the next term, and disposed of in the ordinary way.

Gage v. Lippman, 31 N.Y.S. 1127, 64 N.Y. St. Rep. 872 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

31 N.Y.S. 1127 (Gage v. Lippman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.