Higgins v. Crouse
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
Upon a former appeal the question relating to the statute of limitations was examined, and an opinion delivered which is found reported in 63 Hun, 134 , 17 N. Y. Supp. 696 . Ho additional evidence, sufficient to take the case away from the principle laid down in the decision made upon the former appeal, was given. It is therefore the duty of this court to adhere to the decision made then, and, applying it to the case before us, it leads to a new trial. See Higgins v. Crouse, 63 Hun, 134 , 17 N. Y. Supp. 696 ; Foot v. Farrington, 41 N. Y. 164 ; Weaver v. Haviland, *1081 68 Hun, 376 , 22 N. Y. Supp. 1012 ; Corn v. Rosenthal, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 2 N. Y. Supp. 700 . Judgment reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.