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.
The Mechanics' and Traders' Bank of Jersey City, Appellant, v. Henry Dakin et al., Respondents, 1873 — 54 N.Y. 681 · caselaw · US
General
The Mechanics' and Traders' Bank of Jersey City, Appellant, v. Henry Dakin et al., Respondents
54 N.Y. 681·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·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 Mechanics’ and Traders’ Bank of Jersey City, Appellant, v. Henry Dakin et al., Respondents.
This was a motion for reargument (case reported 51 N. Y., 519), upon the ground that the decision was in conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Thv/rber v. Blomek (50 N. Y., 80). The motion was denied upon the ground that, as the remittitur had gone down, and as a new trial was ordered, either party upon new trial, if dissatisfied with the result, could take the same to the Court of Appeals for final disposition, and thus the disputed question could be finally settled.
William H. Arnoux for motion.
William T. Shepard opposed.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for denial of motion.
All concur.
Motion denied.