White v. Balta

28 N.Y.S. 3, 7 Misc. 662, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 377
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided April 2, 1894·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PRYOR, J.

The motion is reprehensible. It asks the privüege of an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the district court for a sum less than a hundred dollars. The action was for a month’s rent of a storeroom, and, upon the trial, only issues of fact were in controversy. It is not pretended in the moving papers that the case involves any question of law at aE, much less one “which ought to be reviewed by the court of appeals.” Code, § 191, subd. 3. Does counsel suppose that our highest tribunal is instituted for the purpose of entertaining anew the petty wrangles of the district court? And why [4]*4should we be vexed by such frivolous and futile motions? An application for leave to take a cause to the court of appeals must state the question of law it desires to have reviewed; and that question must be one not only of importance, but which has never been adjudicated by the court of appeals. A proposition which no lawyer will dispute is not a question of law. Motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

White v. Balta, 28 N.Y.S. 3, 7 Misc. 662, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 377 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

28 N.Y.S. 3 (White v. Balta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wallace v. Dinniny
32 N.Y.S. 1150 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Bicknell v. Spier
28 N.Y.S. 4 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1894)