In Moore v. Moore (138 N.Y. 679) the court wrote: "In fact, the granting of the order of discontinuance might be regarded as a concession on the part of the plaintiff that he was unable to prove his case."
Summary of this case from Blevins v. BlevinsArgued June 20, 1893
Decided June 30, 1893
R.A. Parmenter for appellant.
Arthur L. Andrews for respondent.
Per Curiam mem. for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.
In Moore v. Moore (138 N.Y. 679) the court wrote: "In fact, the granting of the order of discontinuance might be regarded as a concession on the part of the plaintiff that he was unable to prove his case."
Summary of this case from Blevins v. BlevinsFull title:WILLIAM MOORE, Respondent, v . MARIA MOORE, Appellant
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Jun 30, 1893
( Campbell v. New York Evening Post, 245 N.Y. 320.) In Moore v. Moore ( 138 N.Y. 679) the court wrote: "In…