Robinson v. Fincken
30 N.Y.S. 1134, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 874
Opinion
It appears that the plaintiff’s exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and defendant’s exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, are omitted from the return, which omission precludes any determination as to the matters litigated at this time. It is therefore directed-that the appeal be reheard at the additional general term of this court, to be held December 20, 1894; the return to be amended in the particulars noted-meanwhile. Krakowski v. Association (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 24 N. Y. Supp. 1138.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Robinson v. Fincken, 30 N.Y.S. 1134, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 874 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).
30 N.Y.S. 1134 (Robinson v. Fincken) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lamson Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Conyuham
63 N.Y. St. Rep. 872 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1894)