72 N.Y. 64 | NY | 1878
We think this case probably falls within the principle ofByrnes v. The City of Cohoes (
There is a further irregularity in this case, by which the court has frequently been inconvenienced in other cases, and to which it has several times called the attention of counsel — that is, the omission to print the opinion of the court below, as required by the rule of this court. Instead of printing the opinion, reference is made to it in the points as reported in the Supreme Court Reports. For several reasons this is not a substitute for a compliance with the rule. The court is deprived of the opportunity to refer conveniently to the opinion during the argument, and is otherwise put to needless trouble. The rule requiring the opinion to be printed in the case is of long-standing and well known to the bar, and should be observed.
For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.
All concur, except CHURCH, Ch. J., absent.
Appeal dismissed.