Newman v. Metro. El. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1890 |
| Citation | 23 N.E. 901,118 N.Y. 618 |
| Parties | NEWMAN v. METROPOLITAN EL. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the first judicial department, affirming a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff upon a verdict, and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial.
At the commencement of this action the plaintiff held a lease of property situated upon the north-west corner of Church and Rector streets, in the city of New York. The lease bore date May 1, 1877, and was for the term of 15 years, with a right of renewal for an additional term of 10 years. Upon the property there was a brick building 5 stories in height, the first floor of which was used as a restaurant, and the other floors for dwellings. The Metropolitan Elevated Railway was constructed through Church street in front of said premises, and in Rector street there had been erected by the defendants a station, from which a covered platform ran to Greenwich street, and there connected with the Ninth-Avenue Elevated road. The plaintiff claimed in his complaint that the defendants' structure interfered with the ingress and engress to and from his premises, and also impaired the circulation of light and air from the street to his building, and deprived him of its customary and lawful use, and greatly reduced its value to him as lessee. It was admitted that the action was brought and tried as one to recover in one sum the whole damage sustained, and to be sustained, from the depreciation of the plaintiff's estate, on the assumption that the defendants' structure caused a permanent impairment of the easements in the street for light, air, and access. The court, having charged the jury that ‘the damages to plaintiff's leasehold was to be measured by the depreciation of rents caused by defendants' structure, in depriving the premises of the accustomed light, air, and egress which it had before said structure was placed thereon,’ and that, in considering the question of damages, ‘the fact that real estate had risen generally in that district of the city did not relieve the railroad company from the element of damage,’ was requested by the defendants to charge as follows: ‘That, in estimating the damages to the leasehold interest in this plaintiff caused by the interference by the defendants with the light, air, and access appurtenant to the premises, the jury may take into consideration any benefits peculiar to his house which have arisen by the construction of the road, as shown by the evidence.’ To this the court replied: ‘That I refuse to charge; on the contrary, the jury have no right to take any such fact into consideration.’ The defendants gave evidence tending to show, and from which the jury might have found, that while the upper parts of the building had been made less desirable for dwelings by reason of the erection of the defendants' structure, and in consequence thereof the rents had fallen, the location of the station in Rector street had, from the greater number of people resorting there, caused the first or store floor of the building to become more desirable for business purposes, and greatly enhanced in rental value.
Julien T. Davies, Edward S. Rapallo, and W. Burke Cochran, for appellants.
James M. Smith and Inglis Stuart, for respondent.
BROWN, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
The basis of the court's refusal to charge as requirested is to be found in the rapid transit act, (chapter 606, Laws 1875, § 20,) and in the general railroad law, (chapter 140, Laws 1850, § 16,) which by section 3, c. 885, Laws 1872, was made applicable to the Gilbert Elevated Railroad Company, to whose rights the Metropolitan Railway Company succeeded. These laws provide that commissioners of appraisal shall not, in determining the amount of compensation to be made to parties owning or interested in property acquired for the construction and operation of railways formed thereunder, ‘make any allowance or deduction on account of any real or supposed benefits which the party in interest may derive from the construction of the proposed railway.’ What is the true meaning of this provision, and how far it is applicable to a case of the character we are considering, is the question we are to determine upon this appeal.
The principle upon which compensation is to be made to the owner of lands taken by proceedings under the general railroad law has been frequently considered by the courts of this state; and the rule is now established that such owner is to receive- First, the full value of the land taken; and, second, where a part only of land is taken, a fair and adequate compensation for all injury to the residue sustained, or to be sustained, by the construction and operation of the railroad. Railroad Co. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169;In re Utica R. Co., 56 Barb. 456; In re Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., 13 Hun, 345; In re New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, 63; In re New York, L. & W. R. Co., 29 Hun, 1; Id. 2 N. Y. Supp. 478;Henderson v. Railroad Co., 78 N. Y. 423. The first element in the award represents the compensation for land which the railroad takes, and to which it acquires title. The second element represents damages which are the result or consequences of the construction of the road upon property not taken, and which the owner still retains. Such damages are wholly consequential, and, to ascertain them, necessarily involves an inquiry into the effect of the road upon the property, and a consideration of all the advantages and disadvantages resulting, and to result, therefrom. The rule is well stated in Lawis, Em. Dom. § 471, as follows: ‘Where part of a tract is taken, just compensation would therefore consist of the value of the part taken, and damages to the remainder, less any special benefits to such remainder by reason of the taking and use of the part for the purpose proposed.’ In this rule, thus settled in this state, and which controls all awards for taking of land under the general railroad act, is to be found the true application of the statutory provision which forbids deductions and allowances to be made by commissioners for any real or supposed benefits which the parties interested may derive from the construction of the rail road. Whatever land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnstone v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.
...appurtenant to such premises. See South Buffalo Ry. Co. v. Kirkover, 176 N. Y. 301, 68 N. E. 366. In Newman v. Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., 118 N. Y. 618, 23 N. E. 901,7 L. R. A. 289, where so-called easements of access, light, and air were impaired by the construction of an elevated rail......
-
Lewis v. New York & H. R. Co.
...in value of the easements as they now are, and as they were with the old and before the new viaduct, was erected. Newman Case, 118 N. Y. 618, 624,23 N. E. 901,7 L. R. A. 289;Bohm Case, 129 N. Y. 576, 591,29 N. E. 802,14 L. R. A. 344;Sutro Case, 137 N. Y. 593, 33 N. E. 334;Bischoff Case, 138......
-
Town of Eutaw v. Botnick
... ... this applies to the compensation for the land taken, and not ... to the damages to the remaining land. Newman v ... Metropolitan Elevated R., 7 L. R. A. 289, 291, 118 N.Y ... 618, 23 N.E. 901; Bohm et al. v. M. E. R. Co. et ... al., 129 N.Y. 576, 591, ... ...
-
Consol. Gas Co. v. City of New York (In re Water Front in City of New York)
...the land not taken I do not assert. On the contrary, this would generally accomplish an equitable result (Newman v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 118 N. Y. 618, 23 N. E. 901,7 L. R. A. 289; Bohm v. Metr. El. Ry. Co., supra), but this much we can hold, and I think we should hold, that in no case......