Odell v. New York El. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1892 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 998,130 N.Y. 690 |
| Parties | ODELL v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from common pleas of New York city and county, general term.
Action by Mary J. Odell against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another. From a judgment of the general term, affirming a judgment entered at special term in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Brainard Tolles, for appellants.
Charles Gibson Bennett, for respondent.
The judgment appealed from awards $1,200 damages, and enjoins the defendants from the further maintenance and operation of their elevated railway in front of the plaintiff's premises, unless within a time fixed they pay to the plaintiff the sum of $4,000, the value of the easement appurtenant to the premises. In submitting the case upon the trial the defendants' counsel requested the court to find that ‘the depreciation caused by the elevated road in the rentals of the living apartments of said building is less than the appreciation or increase caused by the clevated road in the rentais of the store or first floor of said building.’ This request was refused as irrelevant, and the exception taken by the defendants to such refusal presents the only question which we are here called upon to determine. The evidence was of such a claracter as to permit the finding asked for. The refusal of the court as ‘irrelevant’ leads us to conclude that it was supposed that the appreciation or increase of the rental value caused by the road could not be considered in determining the amount of damages that should be awarded. The question of benefits has been recently considered in the case of Newman v. Railroad Co., 118 N. Y. 618, 23 N. E. Rep. 901, and in Bohm v. Same, 29 N. E. Rep. 802, (N Y. App. Dec. Jan. 20, 1892,) in which it was held that, as to land taken by the railroad company, the full market value must be paid, without deduction for benefits. But as to the effect of the road upon lands not taken, its advantages and disadvantages, benefits and injuries, must be considered, and, if the benefits equal or exceed the injuries, no damages can be awarded. We have carefully examined the case for the purpose of determining whether the trial court considered or made allowance for the benefits, but are unable to find any ruling which satisfies us that the question of benefits was determined. The other questions presented by the record have already been disposed of....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedges v. West Shore R. Co.
...Case, 90 N. Y. 122; Lahr's Case, 104 N. Y. 287, 10 N. E. 528;American Bank Note Co.'s Case, 129 N. Y. 252, 29 N. E. 302; Odell's Case, 130 N. Y. 690, 29 N. E. 998;McGean's Case, 133 N. Y. 9, 30 N. E. 647. In this case the learned trial judge has found, as conclusions of law, that the defend......
- Moore v. New York El. R. Co.