Hastings v. H.M. Byllesby and Company, Rosen
37 N.E.2d 145, 286 N.Y. 705, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 2268
Opinion
Motion to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. The only question presented upon this appeal was the correctness of the order granting the motion to dismiss under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. ■ (See 286 N. Y. 468.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hastings v. H.M. Byllesby and Company, Rosen, 37 N.E.2d 145, 286 N.Y. 705, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 2268 (N.Y. 1941).
37 N.E.2d 145 (Hastings v. H.M. Byllesby and Company, Rosen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.
36 N.E.2d 666 (New York Court of Appeals, 1941)