
    Medora A. Harroun and Alfred O. Fenn, as Administrators, etc., of Fred J. Harroun, Deceased, Respondents, v. The Brush Electric Light Company, Appellant.
    
      Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals — the questions to be renewed must be definitely and concisely stated. .'
    
    "Where a motion is made, under section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for leave to appeal to the Court of Ajipeals, the questions of law which the moving party desires to have reviewed by that court must be definitely and concisely stated in the notice of motion, and if this is not done the motion will be ■denied.
    Motion by the defendant, The Brush Electric Light Company, for a reargument of an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 29th day of May, 1895, upon the verdict of a jury rendered -after a trial at the Monroe Circuit, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 24th day of May, 1895, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes, and also for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and order, the -opinion being reported in 12 Appellate Division, page 126.
    
      Joseph, W. Taylor, for the motion.
    
      Charles Roe, opposed.
   Per Curiam :

Upon a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the questions of law which the moving party desires to have reviewed by that court must be definitely and concisely stated in the notice of motion, and in case the questions are not so stated the motion will be denied.

The motion for reargmneiit and the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals should be denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred, except Adams, J., not sitting.

Motion for reargument and motion. for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements..  