138 N.Y. 76, Livingston v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co.
| Citation: | 138 N.Y. 76 |
| Party Name: | SILVIA LIVINGSTON, Respondent, v. THE METROPOLITAN ELEVATED RAILWAY CO. et al., Appellants. JULIA LIVINGSTON, Respondent, v. THE SAME, Appellants. MORGAN L. LIVINGSTON et al., Respondents, v. THE SAME, Appellants. |
| Case Date: | April 11, 1893 |
| Court: | New York Court of Appeals |
Page 76
Argued March 17, 1893.
Page 77
COUNSEL
Brainard Tolles for appellants. The referee erred in refusing to recognize that the question before him was purely one of consequential damages, in refusing to rule that benefits were to be considered upon the question of consequential damages and in refusing to find benefits when the same were proven without contradiction. ( Wiener v. N.Y. E. R. R. Co., 42 N.Y. S. R. 785; Odell v. N.Y. E. R. Co., 130 N.Y. 690; Gray v. M. R. Co., 35 N.Y. S. R. 32; Purdy v. M. E. R. Co., 36 id. 43; Sillcocks v. N.Y. E. R. Co., 19 N.Y.S. 476; Sutro v. M. E. R. Co., 127 N.Y. 592; Sperb v. M. E. R. Co., Id . 155; Sloane v. N.Y. E. R. Co., Id . 595; Cohn v. M. E. R. Co., 49 N.Y. S. R. 339; Bohm v. M. E. R. Co., 129 N.Y. 576.)
George L. Rives for respondent. There was no error in admitting evidence of values. (Roberts Case, 128 N.Y. 455; Golden v. E. R. R. Co., 48 N.Y. S. R. 725; Kernochan Case, 128 N.Y. 559; Mortimer Case, 129 id. 81.) There was no error in the rulings upon evidence. (Kane Case, 125 N.Y. 164; Bischoff v. N.Y. E. R. Co., 46 N.Y. S. R. 863; Slocovich v. O. M. Ins. Co., 108 N.Y. 56.) The referee properly refused to dismiss the complaint. (128 N.Y. 559; 129 id. 76.) The sums awarded in avoidance of an injunction did not include anything more than the value of the easements of light, air and access taken by the defendants, and their value was ascertained on correct principles. ( Sperb v. E. R. R. Co., 32 N. E. Rep. 1050.) The referee did not refuse to take into consideration any benefits to the premises
Page 78
resulting from the presence of the road in West Broadway. ( Bischoff v. N.Y. E. R. Co., 46 N.Y. S. R. 863; Betjeman v. N.Y. E. R. Co., 48 id. 721; Slater v. E. R. R. Co., Id . 721.)
Per Curiam.
The referee in these cases was requested to find that the easements, if any, appurtenant to said lots of land and taken for the said railway uses, aside from any damage to said land from the taking, have in themselves only a nominal value. This finding he refused to make. He was also...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
86 P. 17 (Wyo. 1906), Clay v. State
...Bk., 2 S.D. 538, 51 N.W. 337; State v. Patton, 35 N.C. 421; Atwood v. Welton, 57 Conn. 514, 18 A. 322; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76, 33 N.E. 732; Graves v. Campbell, [15 Wyo. 68] 74 Tex. 576; Blindbental v. Street Ry. Co., 34 Mo.App. 463; Carter v. Wakeman, 45 Ore. 427, 78 P. 362......
-
150 N.Y. 126, Denton v. Ontario County Nat. Bank
...and the refusal was error. ( Ackerman v. Hun, Page 129 sicker, 85 N.Y. 43; McPherson v. Rollins, 107 N.Y. 316; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76; Edwards v. Woodruff, 90 N.Y. 396; Ostrander v. Hart, 130 N.Y. 413.)The decree was inequitable and unjust, and was not even in accordance wi......
-
138 N.Y. 173, Adler v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co.
...id. 703; Sutro v. M. E. R. Co., Id . 701; Sloane v. N.Y. E. R. Co., Id . 705; Sperb v. M. E. R. Co., Id . 664; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76.) The trial judge Page 175 erred in requiring defendants to shave off the easterly wall of their Eighth street station so as to bring it wit......
-
148 N.Y. 507, Koehler v. Hughes
...so conclusively proved by uncontradicted evidence that the refusal to find as requested was error in law. ( Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76.)While the record shows us a deed from Henry Hughes to the plaintiff, and there is evidence tending to show that at the date thereof the granto......
-
86 P. 17 (Wyo. 1906), Clay v. State
...Bk., 2 S.D. 538, 51 N.W. 337; State v. Patton, 35 N.C. 421; Atwood v. Welton, 57 Conn. 514, 18 A. 322; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76, 33 N.E. 732; Graves v. Campbell, [15 Wyo. 68] 74 Tex. 576; Blindbental v. Street Ry. Co., 34 Mo.App. 463; Carter v. Wakeman, 45 Ore. 427, 78 P. 362......
-
150 N.Y. 126, Denton v. Ontario County Nat. Bank
...and the refusal was error. ( Ackerman v. Hun, Page 129 sicker, 85 N.Y. 43; McPherson v. Rollins, 107 N.Y. 316; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76; Edwards v. Woodruff, 90 N.Y. 396; Ostrander v. Hart, 130 N.Y. 413.)The decree was inequitable and unjust, and was not even in accordance wi......
-
138 N.Y. 173, Adler v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co.
...id. 703; Sutro v. M. E. R. Co., Id . 701; Sloane v. N.Y. E. R. Co., Id . 705; Sperb v. M. E. R. Co., Id . 664; Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76.) The trial judge Page 175 erred in requiring defendants to shave off the easterly wall of their Eighth street station so as to bring it wit......
-
148 N.Y. 507, Koehler v. Hughes
...so conclusively proved by uncontradicted evidence that the refusal to find as requested was error in law. ( Livingston v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N.Y. 76.)While the record shows us a deed from Henry Hughes to the plaintiff, and there is evidence tending to show that at the date thereof the granto......