Mahon v. Sewell
7 N.Y.S. 600, 27 N.Y. St. Rep. 816, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1190
Opinion
The appellant does not bring himself within the rule for granting rearguments as laid down by the court. Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283. He does not show that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, nor that the decision is in conflict with an express statute, or with a controlling decision of the court. This is an application to re-argue the case upon the points and authorities upon which it has been already heard and disposed of. The application should be denied, with $10 costs. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mahon v. Sewell, 7 N.Y.S. 600, 27 N.Y. St. Rep. 816, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1190 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).
7 N.Y.S. 600 (Mahon v. Sewell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Curley v. Tomlinson
5 Daly 283 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1874)