
    Patrick Mahon, Resp’t, v. Nathaniel P. Sewell, App’lt.
    
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 2, 1889.)
    
    Appeal—Re-argument.
    Where an application for re-argument fails to show that any question decisive of the case has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with an express statute or a controlling decision of the court, it will be denied.
    Motion for re-argument.
    
      J. Mb Crone, for motion; P. Mahon, opposed.
    
      
       See 25 N. Y. State Rep., 930.
    
   Daly, J.

The appellant does not bring himself within the rule for granting re-arguments 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 ten dollars costs.

Laeeemoee, Oh. J., and Van Hoesen, J., concur.  