Thompson v. Leerburger

New York Court of Common Pleas

Thompson v. Leerburger

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020

DecidedApril 2, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020 (Thompson v. Leerburger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-leerburger-nyctcompl-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack