Irvine v. F. H. Palmer Manufacturing Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Motion by the respondent, Frank Irvine, an infant, by John Irvine, his guardian ad litem, for a reargument of the appeal pending in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the second judicial department. The appeal was decided upon the merits, at the February term of the court. (See 2 App. Div. 69.)
1Opinion of the Court
Hatch, J.:
In order for a motion of this character to succeed, it must appear that some question, decisive of the case, was presented by the counsel which the court in its decision has overlooked. (Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 102; Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 id. 651.)
The learned counsel for plaintiff claims that he has brought this case within the rule, and that the court has in fact overlooked evidence decisive of the case in plaintiff’s favor, and has clearly misconceived the testimony of plaintiff and that of other witnesses *386-in the ease. The first claim which plaintiff makes is that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Hecker-Jones-Jewell Milling Co. v. BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Van Sickel v. IlsleyNew York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fishbach v. Steinway Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Fishbach v. Steinway Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896