Heerwagen v. Ritzmann

35 N.Y.S. 1108, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 886
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided December 2, 1895·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The present motion does not conform to rule 16 of the general term of this court, with regard to motions for reargument. Counsel in effect simply desires to present a more elaborate argument upon the exception which the general term deemed fatal to the judgment, and it does not appear that any question decisive of the ease has been overlooked. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Heerwagen v. Ritzmann, 35 N.Y.S. 1108, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 886 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

35 N.Y.S. 1108 (Heerwagen v. Ritzmann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.