Hastings v. H.M. Byllesby and Company, Rosen
37 N.E.2d 145, 286 N.Y. 705, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 2268
This text of 37 N.E.2d 145 (Hastings v. H.M. Byllesby and Company, Rosen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
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).
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
Related
Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.
36 N.E.2d 666 (New York Court of Appeals, 1941)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
37 N.E.2d 145, 286 N.Y. 705, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 2268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hastings-v-hm-byllesby-and-company-rosen-ny-1941.