Siefke v. Siefke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siefke v. Siefke

55 N.Y.S. 1148

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1898·Published

Opinion

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The evidence introduced upon this trial is substantially the same as that offered on the former trial. On the former trial the complaint was dismissed, but on appeal this court held (6 App. Div. 472, 39 N. Y. Supp. 601), that the trial court erred, and that the case should have been submitted to the jury. The law as declared on the previous appeal is the law of this case. I think, therefore, that the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PATTERSON, J„ concur. For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice INGRAHAM on the former appeal, O’BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ., dissent. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 953.

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

McLAUGHLIN, J.

The evidence introduced upon this trial is substantially the same as that offered on the former trial. On the former trial the complaint was dismissed, but on appeal this court held (6 App. Div. 472, 39 N. Y. Supp. 601), that the trial court erred, and that the case should have been submitted to the jury. The law as declared on the previous appeal is the law of this case. I think, therefore, that the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PATTERSON, J„ concur. For the reasons stated by Mr. Justice INGRAHAM on the former appeal, O’BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ., dissent. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 953.

Siefke v. Siefke, 55 N.Y.S. 1148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

55 N.Y.S. 1148 (Siefke v. Siefke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related