In Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580, 36 N.E. 182, 183, the court said: "There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law.
Summary of this case from Woodward v. PerkinsArgued January 26, 1894
Decided February 6, 1894
Chas. A. Collin for appellants.
Edward B. Whitney for respondent.
ANDREWS, Ch. J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580, 36 N.E. 182, 183, the court said: "There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law.
Summary of this case from Woodward v. PerkinsFull title:MARY CLUFF, Suing on her Own Behalf, etc., Respondent, v . HENRY S. DAY et…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Feb 6, 1894
When, however, the question has been once decided in this court, or in the Second division, with co-ordinate…
Jones v. KeetchAccordingly, its effect is limited to a court of coordinate jurisdiction which ordinarily should not…