Kerr v. Walter
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Motion by the appellant,'Harrie T. Walter, to amend a remittitur and for leave to reargue the appeal or,
1Per curiam
The alleged error in the remittitur is .admitted by counsel for the appellant to be “ in itself a trivial and unimportant matter.” Moreover, the counsel lias fallen into error himself by making it appear in his order.to show cause that the remittitur recites “that counsel for plaintiff-respondent appeared upon said argument.” There was in fact no oral argument of'.the appeal, and the remittitur merely recites “ and the said appeal haying been submitted by Mi- Harcourt Bull, of counsel for the appellant arid by Mr. Herman S. Butler of Counsel for the respondent,” etc. No reason ¡appears for…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Schifrin v. Chenille Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- Dixon v. CarrucciAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
- Stevens v. GertzDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1952
- Levenson v. ArnoldAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
- Catalano v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co. of London & EdinburghAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.