Legal Opinion

Kerr v. Walter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 15, 1905PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Schifrin v. Chenille Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
  2. Dixon v. CarrucciAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
  3. Stevens v. GertzDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1952
  4. Levenson v. ArnoldAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API