Opinion
June Term, 1896.
Motion denied —
This case was submitted on the 14th of March, 1896. Appellant now moves for a reargument, and one of the reasons urged is that the case was submitted instead of being argued orally. Upon an examination of all the grounds urged for a reargument, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made a case entitling him to a reargument according to well-established rules applicable to motions for reargument. ( Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N.Y. 702; Marine National Bank v. National City Bank, 59 id. 67; Auburn City Nat. Bank v. Hunsiker, 72 id. 252; Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 id. 651.) In the course of the examination of the case upon the merits the court had occasion to refer to 101 N.Y. 226; 87 Hun, 542, and it reached the conclusion that the question involved and passed upon by the referee was one of fact. (79 Hun, 364; 86 id. 14; 125 N.Y. 756.) Nothing is found in the motion papers submitted for reargument which is sufficient to induce the court to grant the motion.