From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cluff v. Day

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 6, 1894
36 N.E. 182 (N.Y. 1894)

Summary

In Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580, 36 N.E. 182, 183, the court said: "There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law.

Summary of this case from Woodward v. Perkins

Opinion

Argued January 26, 1894

Decided February 6, 1894

Chas. A. Collin for appellants.

Edward B. Whitney for respondent.



ANDREWS, Ch. J., reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Cluff v. Day

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 6, 1894
36 N.E. 182 (N.Y. 1894)

In Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580, 36 N.E. 182, 183, the court said: "There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law.

Summary of this case from Woodward v. Perkins
Case details for

Cluff v. Day

Case Details

Full title:MARY CLUFF, Suing on her Own Behalf, etc., Respondent, v . HENRY S. DAY et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 6, 1894

Citations

36 N.E. 182 (N.Y. 1894)
36 N.E. 182
60 N.Y. St. Rptr. 321

Citing Cases

Commercial Union of Am. v. Anglo-South Am. Bank

It is important, of course, that private controversies should be determined in the court of last resort…

Jones v. Keetch

Bannon v Bannon, 270 N.Y. 484; 1 N.E.2d 975; 105 ALR 1401 [1936]. Accordingly, its effect is limited to a…