Thompson v. Leerburger

New York Court of Common Pleas

Thompson v. Leerburger

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided April 2, 1888·Published

Opinion

J.F. Daly, J.

—It does not appear that any question decisive of the case was overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistent with any statute or controlling decision. Rule 16, Com. Pl. Rules; Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283. There is no evidence that the court overlooked section 3221 of the Code in disposing of this appeal. That section applies in a case like this one and the judgment was correct.

The motion for re-argument, or for leave to appeal to the court of appeals, must be denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

J.F. Daly, J.

—It does not appear that any question decisive of the case was overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistent with any statute or controlling decision. Rule 16, Com. Pl. Rules; Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283. There is no evidence that the court overlooked section 3221 of the Code in disposing of this appeal. That section applies in a case like this one and the judgment was correct.

The motion for re-argument, or for leave to appeal to the court of appeals, must be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Thompson v. Leerburger, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020 (Thompson v. Leerburger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related