Townsend v. Van Buskirk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Townsend v. Van Buskirk

52 A.D. 624, 65 N.Y.S. 1148

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Townsend v. Van Buskirk. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 A.D. 441 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1900·Published

Opinion

The statute overlooked by counsel can be brought to the attention of the Special Term upon’the new trial, which has been ordered. All the rights of the plaintiff may thus be preserved. The omission is not deemed a sufficient reason for granting a new argument after a lapse of two and a half years and after so great a change as has taken place in the constitution of this court. Motion for reargument denied.

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

The statute overlooked by counsel can be brought to the attention of the Special Term upon’the new trial, which has been ordered. All the rights of the plaintiff may thus be preserved. The omission is not deemed a sufficient reason for granting a new argument after a lapse of two and a half years and after so great a change as has taken place in the constitution of this court. Motion for reargument denied.

Townsend v. Van Buskirk, 52 A.D. 624, 65 N.Y.S. 1148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

52 A.D. 624 (Townsend v. Van Buskirk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.