Pattison v. Bacon

12 Abb. Pr. 142, 21 How. Pr. 478
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1861·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

—I see no reason for a reargument of this motion. The additional matters which the defendant wishes to set up on the renewed motion were all known to him when that original motion was made. He should have stated all that was necessary at that time to secure his success. If he has neg-[143]*143looted to do so, it is not consistent with the rules of practice in such case, to allow him the opportunity of making up the facts necessary to avoid the effect of the former decision. It is no more within.the rules of propriety to allow a renewal of a motion for such a purpose, than it would be to set aside a verdict of a jury because a party did not put in evidence all of his defence which was known to him at the time. If the order, as made on the motion, was right, it ought not to be vacated for the reasons now submitted. If it was erroneous, the defendant. should appeal to the general term and have it renewed.

The motion is denied.

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

Pattison v. Bacon, 12 Abb. Pr. 142, 21 How. Pr. 478 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

12 Abb. Pr. 142 (Pattison v. Bacon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheehan v. Carvalho
12 A.D. 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Enderlin State Bank v. Jennings
26 L.R.A. 593 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co.
18 Abb. N. Cas. 423 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1886)
Hall v. Emmons
8 Abb. Pr. 451 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1870)