
    Lane, Appellant, v. Jacobs, Respondent.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    April 1, 1889.)
   Per Curiam.

After a re-examination of this case, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by us on the previous argument should not be disturbed. It does not appear that any substantial fact has been disregarded, or any point of law overlooked; and, adhering to the rule expressed in Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283, we think this application should be denied.  