Rohner v. Lenisch

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rohner v. Lenisch

31 Misc. 781, 65 N.Y.S. 233

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Misc. 781 (Rohner v. Lenisch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rohner v. Lenisch, 31 Misc. 781, 65 N.Y.S. 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have examined the record in this case, and are of the opinion that the evidence before us taken on the new trial does not differ materially from that which was before this court on the previous appeal, in which the law was clearly laid down, which should govern the disposition of the action. Rohner v. Lenisch, 29 Misc. Rep. 315. It was the law of the case, and should have been followed by the court below. It seems, however, to have been disregarded. The judgment must accordingly be reversed. See also Curtiss v. Mott, 90 Hun, 439. As the plaintiff on the new trial, which was ordered on the former appeal, has had a full opportunity to strengthen his case by additional evidence, and has failed to do so, we are satisfied that it would be futile to order a new trial, and that the complaint should, therefore, be dismissed.

Present: Beekmam, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gormmm, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We have examined the record in this case, and are of the opinion that the evidence before us taken on the new trial does not differ materially from that which was before this court on the previous appeal, in which the law was clearly laid down, which should govern the disposition of the action. Rohner v. Lenisch, 29 Misc. Rep. 315. It was the law of the case, and should have been followed by the court below. It seems, however, to have been disregarded. The judgment must accordingly be reversed. See also Curtiss v. Mott, 90 Hun, 439. As the plaintiff on the new trial, which was ordered on the former appeal, has had a full opportunity to strengthen his case by additional evidence, and has failed to do so, we are satisfied that it would be futile to order a new trial, and that the complaint should, therefore, be dismissed.

Present: Beekmam, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gormmm, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 781, 65 N.Y.S. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohner-v-lenisch-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack