Hyperlawhypertext legal database Seasongood v. New York El. R. 18 N.Y.S. 955

← Cases

Seasongood v. New York El. R.

18 N.Y.S. 955 Court General Term. Decision date 1892-03-14 English

Delivered by Gildersleeve, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 955
Seasongood et al., Respondents, v. New York El. R. Co., et al., Appellants.
(Superior Court of New York City,
General Term.
March 14, 1892.)

Headnote

Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by Lewis Seasongood and others against the Hew York Elevated Railroad Company and another.
p. 956
For other litigation between the same parties, see 17 H. Y. Supp. 945.
Argued before Sedgwick, C. J„ and Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ.
Davies <& Sapallo, for appellants. Saekett & Bennett, for respondents.

This is an action for damages to the fee and rental values of plaintiffs’ premises Hos. 760, 762, 764, 766, 768, 770, 772, and 774 Third avenue, in the city of Hew York, caused by the maintenance and operation in front thereof of the defendants’ elevated railroad. The judgment allows defendants to pay to plaintiffs the sum of $11,500, with interest from the date of the entry of judgment, in avoidance of the injunction; and it also awards to the plaintiffs the sum of $2,070 for past damages sustained from March 22, 1889-, to the date of the trial, with interest from the date of the trial to the date of the entry of the judgment, together with $480.18, costs, extra allowance, and disbursements. The case seems to have been carefully tried, and we find no errors in the admission or exclusion of testimony that call for a reversal of the judgment. The evidence fairly sustains the findings of the referee, and justifies the judgment. It therefore follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.