New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891

Sperry v. Hellman

Sperry v. Hellman
New York Court of Common Pleas · Decided November 4, 1891 · Bischoff
16 N.Y.S. 954; 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2338 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Seligman & Seligman, for appellant. Howard A. Sperry, for respondent.

Sperry v. Hellman

Opinion of the Court

Bischoff, J.

The motion papers do not disclose any of the grounds specified in rule 16 of the general term rules upon which a reargument may be allowed, and this motion is for that reason denied. The question involved in this appeal is, however, of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the court of appeals, and respondent may, if he desires it, have leave to appeal tothát court. No costs of this motion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.