Weil v. Eckstein

New York Court of Common Pleas

Weil v. Eckstein

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 298

DecidedApril 4, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 298 (Weil v. Eckstein) 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

Weil v. Eckstein, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 298 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is absolutely nothing in this case to warrant us in sending it to the court of appeals.

The exceptions taken at the trial present no question of law that is either novel or unsettled. It is impossible that [299]*299any court could consider the testimony that was excluded admissible.

Of course the court of appeals is not the proper tribunal to Esten to arguments concerning controverted questions of fact; and there is nothing in this appeal worth considering but questions of fact.

Motion for leave to go to the court of appeals must be denied with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

There is absolutely nothing in this case to warrant us in sending it to the court of appeals.

The exceptions taken at the trial present no question of law that is either novel or unsettled. It is impossible that [299]*299any court could consider the testimony that was excluded admissible.

Of course the court of appeals is not the proper tribunal to Esten to arguments concerning controverted questions of fact; and there is nothing in this appeal worth considering but questions of fact.

Motion for leave to go to the court of appeals must be denied with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weil-v-eckstein-nyctcompl-1887.