Pritchard v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 15 November 1904
• Citation: 72 N.E. 243,179 N.Y. 364
• Parties: PRITCHARD v. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

179 N.Y. 364

72 N.E. 243

PRITCHARD

v.EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 15, 1904.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Myron T. Pritchard, executor of Charles H. Haynes, against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (87 N. Y. Supp. 225) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Henry J. Hemmens and Samuel A. Beardsley, for appellant.

Frank H. Hardenbrook, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought to recover the damages resulting from the maintenance of a nuisance by the defendant. The plaintiff's testator, on the 19th day of April, 1890, leased from the owners the property known as ‘Miller's Hotel,’ situated on West Twenty-Sixth street, New York, at Nos. 37, 39, and 41, for the period of five years, at an annual rental of $15,000, and at the end of that priod he renewed the lease for another period of five years at a rental of $12,000 per year. In 1888 the defendant constructed and put in operation an electric lighting plant and power station situated upon the same street 41 feet west of the hotel. In the complaint it is alleged that the defendant had so constructed and conducted its property and operated its machinery as to discharge upon the premises of the plaintiff great quantities of soot, cinders, ashes, noisome gases, unpleasant odors, steam, and water condensing from steam, which pervaded the premisesof the plaintiff, fouling and injuring the same and the furniture therein, and further made and produced loud, disagreeable, and incessant noises, and very great jar and vibration, which was transmitted through the premises of the plaintiff, to the injury of the same, causing a great nuisance, and disturbing the rest and quiet of its inmates, and preventing their sleep, and injuriously affecting their health and their quiet and peaceful enjoyment and use of their apartments, to the plaintiff's damages, etc. Two actions were brought by the plaintiff's testator covering different periods of time, which have been consolidated and tried together as one action, resulting in the verdict upon which the judgment appealed from was entered.

Upon the trial a number of exceptions were taken to the admission and rejection of evidence. Some of the rulings may be justly subject to criticism, but we think the answers given by the witnesses were not sufficiently harmful to justify a reversal. The serious question in the case pertains to the rule of damages adopted by the trial court. The jury was charged that: ‘If the defendant's power station, as operated, was a nuisance, and lessened the profits of this hotel, the damages which the plaintiff may recover are to be limited to the actual loss of profits, such as you find from the evidence were caused to be lost through the defendant's acts in the use and operation of its power station.’ And again: ‘Generally, upon the question of the plaintiff's claim that profits were lost, you should first take the gross receipts of this hotel, year by year, as they appear to you from the evidence to have been, and deduct from them, year by year, the rent paid by Mr. Haynes and the running expenses. This would give the net profits of each year.’ And finally: ‘You are to notice that at some time after the establishment of the station the rent of the hotel was lessened, and so far Mr. Haynes had less expenses in the running of his hotel. To this extent, if his gross receipts fell off, there would still be no loss, unless the reduction of gross receipts was greater than the reduction of rents. The same considerations would apply to any reductionof the running expenses of the hotel after the year 1888, since your comparison of profits before and after the station was established must be based upon the net profits in each year; that is, profits over and above the actual rent and running expenses year by year. You are to make this comparison, gentlemen, for the purpose of finding whether there was a loss during the period after the defendant's station was in operation. If there was a loss, you are then to consider how much of it was reasonably...