Robinson v. New York Elevated R. Co.

Decision Date02 June 1903
Citation67 N.E. 431,175 N.Y. 219
PartiesROBINSON et al. v. NEW YORK ELEVATED R. CO. et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Frederick S. Robinson, trustee of Mary E. Nelson, and others, against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (77 N. Y. Supp. 1139) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, certain defendants appeal. Reversed.

Julien T. Davies, Alfred A. Wheat, and Charles A. Gardiner, for appellants.

Henry A. Forster and John A. Weeks, for respondents Robinson and others.

Lawrence E. Brown and Edward F. Brown, for respondent Nelson.

BARTLETT, J.

This is the usual elevated railroad case, to recover fee and rental damages, and, under the unanimous decision, the defendant railway companies are confined to the argument of legal errors duly raised by exceptions.

The counsel for the appellants insists that the learned trial judge admitted, over objection and exception, evidence regarding sales and rentals of specific pieces of property on Pearl street, other than the premises in suit, in violation of the rule laid down by this court in the case of Jamieson v. Kings County Elevated Railway Co., 147 N. Y. 322, 325,41 N. E. 693. Judge Finch there said: ‘The plaintiff sought to prove the evil effect of the road in diminishing values by the process of calling the owners of property in the vicinity, and proving in each case what the particular premises owned by the witness rented for before the road was built, and what thereafter. There were objections and exceptions. Such a process is not permissible. Each piece of evidence raised a collateral issue (Gouge v. Roberts, 53 N. Y. 619), and left the court to try a dozen issues over as many separate parcels of property. We have held such a mode of proof to be inadmissible. Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 365, 23 N. E. 544;Matter of Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463,28 N. E. 289,14 L. R. A. 52. The elevated railroad cases in this court, to which the plaintiff refers us, give no warrant for such a mode of proof, but indicate that the general course and current of values must be shown by persons competent to speak, leaving to a cross-examination any inquiry into specific instances, if such be deemed essential. Almost all the evidence of depreciation was or the erroneous character, and we cannot say that it may not have worked harm to the defendant.’ The rule laid down was followed in Witmark v. New York Elevated R. Co., 149 N. Y. 393, 44 N. E. 78, and other cases.

The course of procedure under this rule may be thus briefly stated: Plaintiff, having called as a witness an expert, is permitted to show the general course and current of values in the immediate vicinity, leaving to a cross-examination any inquiry into specific instances, if such be deemed essential; the reason for the rule being that to permit evidence of the rental or fee value of other premises would raise in each case a collateral issue to be tried. When the plaintiff's expert witness is cross-examined by the defendant as to specific instances, it is competent, upon a redirect examination, for the plaintiff to make such full inquiry as he may be advised as to each one of the specific instances brought out on cross examination. In the case at bar the plaintiffs swore their expert and conducted the direct examination in compliance with the rule. On cross-examination the defendants made inquiry as to about 12 pieces of other property in the immediate neighborhood. On redirect examination the plaintiffs examined the witness, over the objection and exception of the defendants, in regard to the fee or rental value of some 16 additional pieces of property in the vicinity of the premises in suit. We are of opinion that the introduction of evidence by the plaintiffs in regard to these additional pieces of property in the immediate neighborhood was in direct violation of the rule we have discussed. It was for the plaintiffs to prove the general course of values, and for the defendants to give evidence of specific instances. If it be true that such evidence on the part of the defendants opened the door, as the respondents' counsel claims, for the introduction of as many additional pieces of property as they saw fit, it would result in raising numerous collateral issues, and lead to the utter subversion of the rule laid down in the Jamieson Case.

The counsel for the plaintiffs insists that, admitting, for argument's sake, the mode of conducting the redirect examination discloses legal error, the manner in which the trial judge treated this evidence when considering the case cured whatever error was committed. The trial judge states in his opinion: ‘On the trial I admitted, under defendants' objection, evidence on the redirect examination of plaintiffs' expert as to certain specific sales of property, other than that involved in this suit. It is doubtful whether this evidence should have been admitted,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Telluride Power Co. v. Bruneau
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 18, 1912
    ...... for direct examination. (U. P. Ry. Co. v. Stanwood,. 71 Neb. 150, 98 N.W. 656; Robinson v. Railway Co.,. 175 N.Y. 219; Becker v. Railway, 177 Pa. 252, 35 L. R. A. 583; Stinson v. ......
  • Westchester County Park Commission v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 5, 1944
    ...the money worth of the resultant loss and, accordingly, did not discharge its burden of proving damages. 4. In Robinson v. New York Elevated R. Co., 175 N.Y. 219, 67 N.E. 431, the Court held it reversible error to permit expert witnesses on direct examination to testify concerning sales of ......
  • Penwell v. Dist. Of D.C..
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • January 13, 1943
    ...236 N.Y. 205, 140 N.E. 563. 5 State v. McBeth, 167 La. 324, 119 So. 65; Peck v. Pierce, 63 Conn. 310, 28 A. 524; Robinson v. New York Elevated R. Co., 175 N.Y. 219, 67 N.E. 431. 6 Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 104, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed. ...
  • Rourke v. Holmes Street Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 31, 1909
    ...his own property or any other property in the vicinity. Jamieson v. Railroad, 147 N.Y. 325; Douglas v. Railroad, 43 N.Y.S. 847; Robinson v. Railroad, 175 N.Y. 222; Railroad White, 166 Ill. 375. In Railroad v. Union Stock Yards, 120 Mo. 551, that being a condemnation case, it is said that wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT