Higgins v. Crouse

24 N.Y.S. 1080
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon a former appeal the question relating to the statute of limitations was examined, and an opinion delivered which is found reported in 63 Hun, 134, 17 N. Y. Supp. 696. Ho additional evidence, sufficient to take the case away from the principle laid down in the decision made upon the former appeal, was given. It is therefore the duty of this court to adhere to the decision made then, and, applying it to the case before us, it leads to a new trial. See Higgins v. Crouse, 63 Hun, 134, 17 N. Y. Supp. 696; Foot v. Farrington, 41 N. Y. 164; Weaver v. Haviland, [1081] 68 Hun, 376, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1012; Corn v. Rosenthal, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 2 N. Y. Supp. 700. Judgment reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

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

Higgins v. Crouse, 24 N.Y.S. 1080 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

24 N.Y.S. 1080 (Higgins v. Crouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westfall v. Wait
73 N.E. 1089 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)