
    John G. Uhler, Resp’t, v. William W. Ryer, App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 1, 1889.)
    
    Re-argument—Where party not entitled to.
    An appellant is not entitled to a re-argument where he is advised of the question of the appealability of an ordei by the opinion of the court below, and has ample opportunity to be heard thereon, and the appeal is dismissed on that question.
    Motion for re-argument. On appeal by defendant to this court, the appeal was dismissed because the order was not appealable (no opinion being written), ánd this motion is made by appellant. The opinion of the city court, general term, from which the appeal to this court was taken, will be found in 18 N. Y. State Rep., 824.
    
      H. M. Colly cr, for motion; J. G. Mitchell, opposed.
   Daly, J.

The moving party does not bring himself within the rule as to re-arguments laid down in Curley v. Tomlinson (5 Daly, 283). The question as to the appeal-ability of the order of the general term of the city court was the principal question before our general term. The appellant was advised by the opinion written in the city court, and printed in his own case, of that very; question, and he had ample opportunity to be heard upon it.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

AH concur.  