
    Hand v. Rogers et al.
    
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Dept.,
    Filed March 27, 1896.)
    Appeal—Reargument.
    A reargument, in the appellate term, will not he granted (1) unless some question decisive of the case has been overlooked; or unless the decision is in conflict with an express statute or a controlling decision; or (3) unless, sinee the decision, the court of appeals or the appellate division has decided adversely the precise question involved. '
    Motion for reargument under rule 4 of the appellate division, regulating the hearing of appeals from city and district courts.
    Charles De Hart Brower, for motion; John Henry Hull, opposed.
   PER CURIAM.

The practice is settled that no motion for a reargument will be entertained except upon papers showing clearly (1) that some question decisive of the case, and duly submitted by counsel, has been overlooked by.-the court; or (2) that the decision is in conflict with an express statute,’ or with a controlling decision, either overlooked by the court, or to which its attention was not drawn through the inadvertence of counsel (Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, followed by the common pleas as a rule of practice in reference to appeals from the city and district courts; Curley v. Tomlinson, 5 Daly, 283; and see Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N. Y. 67, 73); or (3) that, since the decision by this term, the court of appeals or the appellate division has decided adversely the precise question involved; hut even then there must be doubt as to the correctness of our decision (Butterfield v. Radde, 40 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 169).

As the application does not f all_ within any off these rules, it must be denied, with $10 costs.  