
    Augusta G. Genet, Respondent, v. The President, Managers and Company of The Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, Appellant.
    Submitted March 13, 1893;
    decided March 21, 1893.)
    This was a motion to amend a remittitur.
    The following is the opinion in full:
    “ This motion must be denied. It is in substance and effect a second motion for re-argument after one had been made and denied, brought to our bar more than a year after the remittitur had been sent down by our express direction; without claim or suggestion that any point or authority had been overlooked, and practically and substantially amounting to an appeal from the Second Division of this court to this tribunal. Nothing of the kind can be permitted, and even the difficulty and danger apprehended by the appellant does not exist. She founds it upon so much of the opinion of the Second Division as held that the contract involved was a conveyance in fee. We have decided in a.later action between the same parties  that it is not such a conveyance and that we had a right so to adjudge because the question was not material to the other action or necessarily involved in it. Of course the appellant is not bound by an opinion upon an immaterial issue, and is put in no peril by it, and so the only reason assigned for the present motion is without adequate foundation.
    
      “ The motion should be denied, with costs.”
    
      George C. Genet for motion.
    
      Frank F. Smith opposed.
    
      
       136 N. Y. 593.
    
   Per Curiam mem.

for denial of motion.

All concur.

Motion denied.  