Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
The New York Rubber Company, Appellant, v. John Rothery et al., Respondents
119 N.Y. 633·New York Court of Appeals·1890·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The New York Rubber Company, Appellant, v. John Rothery et al., Respondents.
(Argued January 27, 1890;
decided January 31, 1890.)
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made June 28,1889, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a resettlement of the case.
On appeal from a former order denying a motion to resettle the case herein (112 N. Y. 592), this court reversed the order and granted the motion. °
The case was brought before the trial court who again refused to resettle it, basing the refusal upon what it describes in its order as an insertion of the “ actual history ” of the matter in regard to which it was sought to have the case amended.
The court here hold that there is nothing in the “ history ” inconsistent with or contradictory of the fact upon which the prior decision was based.
Austen G. Fox for appellant.
H. H. Hustis for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gray, J.,]
Gray, J.,
reads for reversal of orders of Special and General Term, and for granting the motion.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.