Heerwagen v. Ritzmann

New York Court of Common Pleas

Heerwagen v. Ritzmann

14 Misc. 643

DecidedJuly 1, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Misc. 643 (Heerwagen v. Ritzmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heerwagen v. Ritzmann, 14 Misc. 643 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam.

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 case has been overlooked.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present: Daly, Oh. J., BisonorF and Pbyob, JJ.

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

Per Ouriam.

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 case has been overlooked.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present: Daly, Oh. J., BisonorF and Pbyob, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heerwagen-v-ritzmann-nyctcompl-1895.