
    Mahon v. Sewell.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    December 2, 1889.)
    Appeal—Rehearing.
    An application for reargument will be denied, where the applicant does not show that any decisive question has been overlooked by the court, nor that the decision conflicts with any express statute or controlling decision.
    On motion for reargument. For former report, see 6 H. Y. Supp. 662.
    Argued before Larremore, C. J., and Daly and Van Hoesen, JJ.
    
      John McCrone, for appellant. Robert J. Mahon, for respondent.
   Daly, J.

The appellant does not bring himself within the rule for granting rearguments as laid down by the court. Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283. He does not show that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, nor that the decision is in conflict with an express statute, or with a controlling decision of the court. This is an application to re-argue the case upon the points and authorities upon which it has been already heard and disposed of. The application should be denied, with $10 costs. All concur.  