Daggett v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daggett v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

173 A.D. 948

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D. 948 (Daggett v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daggett v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 173 A.D. 948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Arthur T. Goodenough, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company and The City and County Contract Company, Appellants.—Judgment affirmed, with costs. If the damages were proven by expert evidence condemned in Roberts v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. (128 N. Y. 455), they were also proven by the testimony authorized by that decision, and the same result reached. The error, if any, may be disregarded, as the criticised testimony in its result coincides with the authorized testimony. It would be a vain thing to send the case to a retrial, or for this court to reverse.the judgment, and thereupon make the same finding rejecting the inadmissible and using the competent evidence. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Mills, J., dissented upon the sole ground that the construction and operation of a railroad for public use are not within the prohibition of the restrictions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Arthur T. Goodenough, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company and The City and County Contract Company, Appellants.—Judgment affirmed, with costs. If the damages were proven by expert evidence condemned in Roberts v. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. (128 N. Y. 455), they were also proven by the testimony authorized by that decision, and the same result reached. The error, if any, may be disregarded, as the criticised testimony in its result coincides with the authorized testimony. It would be a vain thing to send the case to a retrial, or for this court to reverse.the judgment, and thereupon make the same finding rejecting the inadmissible and using the competent evidence. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Mills, J., dissented upon the sole ground that the construction and operation of a railroad for public use are not within the prohibition of the restrictions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D. 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daggett-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappdiv-1916.