Higgins v. . Crichton

98 N.Y. 626, 1885 N.Y. LEXIS 666
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 20, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 98 N.Y. 626 (Higgins v. . Crichton) 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
Higgins v. . Crichton, 98 N.Y. 626, 1885 N.Y. LEXIS 666 (N.Y. 1885).

Opinion

rAgree to affirm ; no opinion.

opinion. All

concur. Judgment affirmed;

affirmed; On a motion subsequently made for re-argument the follow- ing mem. was handed down

" The motion for a re-argument in this case seems, from the points of the counsel for the appellant, to have been made under the impression that because the affirmance was not stated to be on the opinion of the court. below, the ground upon which that court based its decision was impliedly overruled, and some different ground must be assumed to have been taken in this court.

court. This is a misapprehension. The affirmance in this court was substantially on the ground stated in the opinion below, of a misjoinder of alleged causes of action by making Close a party defendant, and demanding against him relief which was inde- pendent of the questions raised by the complaint in respect to the other defendants.

defendants. The questions raised on the demurrers were very narrow and not free from difficulty, though they might very easily have been obviated by amendment, but .after having given- the case considerable attention we were of opinion that the conclusion reached by the court below-should

*627 When we affirm without an opinion, and without formally adopting the opinion below, it is not to be understood that the affirmance is on grounds substantially different from those taken below.

In case of such a difference, we should deem it proper to, state the reasons for aflirmance.

The motion should be denied, with $10 costs."

All concur.

Motion denied.

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

Related

Stehli v. Town of Oyster Bay
14 Misc. 355 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)
Dusenberry v. Sagamore Development Co.
157 A.D. 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Obermayer v. Geering
130 N.Y.S. 674 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Todaro v. Somerville Realty Co.
138 A.D. 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
People v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
124 A.D. 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Mack v. Latta
83 A.D. 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Critten v. Vredenburgh
4 A.D. 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
O'Sullivan v. New York El. Railroad
36 N.Y.S. 16 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
O'Sullivan v. New York Elevated Railroad
71 N.Y. St. Rep. 24 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)
Sullivan v. New York Elevated Railroad
71 N.Y. St. Rep. 482 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1895)
Sullivan v. New York El. Railroad
36 N.Y.S. 432 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 N.Y. 626, 1885 N.Y. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-crichton-ny-1885.