Lee v. Price

New York Court of Common Pleas

Lee v. Price

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 358

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided June 6, 1887·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Applications of this character are of such frequent occurrence, that it seems unnecessary to reiterate what this court has decided in cases where parties ask for a re-argument or for leave to gó to the court of appeals. In Spofford v. Rowan (6 N. Y. St. Rep., 273) and Weil v. Eckstein (id., 298), we have expressed our views, and a repetition of them would appear to be unnecessary.

We have examined the various exceptions in the case, and in view of the charge of the judge in the court below, think that they were immaterial, or at least that the testimony objected to could not have prejudiced the defendant.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the application should be denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Applications of this character are of such frequent occurrence, that it seems unnecessary to reiterate what this court has decided in cases where parties ask for a re-argument or for leave to gó to the court of appeals. In Spofford v. Rowan (6 N. Y. St. Rep., 273) and Weil v. Eckstein (id., 298), we have expressed our views, and a repetition of them would appear to be unnecessary.

We have examined the various exceptions in the case, and in view of the charge of the judge in the court below, think that they were immaterial, or at least that the testimony objected to could not have prejudiced the defendant.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the application should be denied.

Lee v. Price, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 358 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 358 (Lee v. Price) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.