Gray v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1891 |
| Citation | 128 N.Y. 499,28 N.E. 498 |
| Parties | GRAY v. MANHATTAN RY. 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 John A. C. Gray against the Manhattan Railway Company, the New York Elevated Railroad Company, and the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company. A judgment for plaintiff, entered on trial by the court without a jury, was reversed by the general term, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff was the owner of four vacant lots of land at the corner of Ninth avenue and Twenty-Seventh street, in the city of New York, and the brought this action as an abutting owner, praying for an injunction restraining the defendants from maintaining and operating their road in front of his lots, and for damages caused to his lots, and for other relief. The trial court ordered judgment in his favor for the injunction prayed for, provided, however, that the injunction should not issue until after 60 days from the entry of judgment, to enable the defendants to acquire his easements in the street by condemnation proceedings, or by the payment of the sum of $8,000, the amount found to be the full damages to the lots. The court found no damage to the rental value of the lots prior to the judgment, and found that ‘said premises would not be worth as much as they now are had the said railway and stations not been built,’ and yet he found that the fee of plaintiff's real estate is diminished in value by the maintenance and operation of the road in the sum of $8,000, and to this finding the defendants excepted. The defendants appealed to the general term, and there the judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered, as appears from the opinion there pronounced, without considering other alleged errors, on the ground that the findings of the court showed that the plaintiff's real estate was not damaged by the defendants, and that the trial judge erred as to the damages. From the order of reversal the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Esek Cowen and George P. Smith, for appellant.
John F. Dillon and Julien T. Davies, for respondents.
EARL, J., ( after stating the facts.)
The main question argued before us and considered at the general term is whether the plaintiff could maintain his judgment in the face of a finding that his ‘premises would not be worth as much as they now are had the railway and stations not been built.’ This is a very important question, and its determination may not only affect this case, but many others pending or to be commenced. We do not deem it important or proper now to determine it, as there are other grounds for the affirmance of the order appealed from. That question may remain undetermined in this court until it is presented for consideration in some case where its solution is required. We may look into the record, and affirm the order, if any error is found there to the prejudice of the defendants. The question of fee damage was closely contested upon the trial. The principal litigation between the parties related to that, and the defendants had the right to have it determined upon competent evidence. Martine, an expert witness called by the plaintiff, was asked this question. ‘What would be the value of the four lots at present, if there were no interference with the light, air, and access which you have described?’ The defendants sufficiently objected to this, the court overruled the objection, and the witness answered, ‘Worth $112,000.’ Curtis, another expert witness, was asked this question: ‘Will you state what, in your opinion, would the value of the property be, were it not for the existence of this interference with light, air, and access by the elevated road, and its structures and its cars?’ Defendants' objections being overruled, the witness answered, ‘$110,000.’ Henriques, also an expert witness for the plaintiff, was asked a similar question, and, defendants' objections being overruled, he answered, ‘In the neighborhood of $112,000 to $115,000.’ We have just decided in Roberts v. Railway Co., 28 N. E. Rep. 486, and Doyle v. Same, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ironton Land Company v. Butchart
... ... Roberts v. New York, 128 N.Y. 455; Jefferson v ... New York, 132 N.Y. 483; Gray v. Manhattan, 128 ... N.Y. 499, 509; Tribune v. Bradshaw, 20 Ill.App. 1; ... Connoble v. Clark, 38 Mo.App. 476. The damages did ... not admit ... ...
-
Union Elevator Co. v. Kansas City Suburban Belt Railway Co.
... ... not have been asked what the land would be worth without the ... defendant's railroad. Doyle v. Railway, 128 N.Y ... 488; Gray v. Railway, Id ... 499; Roberts v ... Railway, 28 N.E. 486 (N. Y. Ct. App.). (7) Respondents ... were not entitled to recover damages on account ... ...
-
In re Metroplex on the Atl., LLC
...public or private mischief merely for the purpose of protecting a technical or unsubstantial right.' ") (quoting Gray v. Manhattan R. Co., 128 N.Y. 499, 28 N.E. 498, 499 (1891) ).George, however, relies on two cases for a different rule: that New York courts will issue an injunction to tear......
-
Theis v. Spokane Falls Gaslight Co.
... ... intervention of a court in respondent's behalf. Bearing ... upon these questions we may cite: Gray v. Manhattan El ... Ry. Co., 128 N.Y. 499, 28 N.E. 498; Barr v ... Pittsburgh, etc., Co., 57 F. 86, 6 C. C. A. 260; ... ...