Hand v. Shaw

75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1488
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hand v. Shaw. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 A.D. 107

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—The plaintiff has failed to bring himself within the rule permitting a reargument. Hand v. Rogers, 16 Mise. Rep. 864; 38 N. Y. Supp. 2. The point urged now was not raised at the argument, and comes too late. Besides, it is not of sufficient importance to warrant the application. The motion to dismiss the complaint was made substantially upon one ground, viz. the insufficiency pf the evidence to support the cause of action, and, as it was but one motion, required but one ruling by the court; consequently but one exception was needed to review the error, if any, in denying the motion. The case is not within the rule laid down in Myers v. Rosenback, 14 Misc. Rep. 638 ; 36 N. Y. Supp. 7,—that one. exception to three different motions is insufficient to require a review of each separately. No ground is presented for an appeal to the appellate division. Lynch v. Sauer, 16 Misc. Rep. 362; 38 N. Y. Supp. 1. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Hand v. Shaw, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

75 N.Y. St. Rep. 1488 (Hand v. Shaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lynch v. Sauer
16 Misc. 362 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Hand v. Rogers
16 Misc. 364 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Myers v. Rosenback
36 N.Y.S. 7 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Myers v. Rosenback
14 Misc. 638 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)