Farrell v. Manhattan Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court

Farrell v. Manhattan Railway Co.

34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 302, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 870

DecidedJune 14, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1139 (Farrell v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farrell v. Manhattan Railway Co., 34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 302, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 870 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the evidence in this case furnished any foundation for an award of rental damage. The fee value of the premises, however, seems to have been seriously affected by the existence of the elevated railroad in front thereof. And this damage is accentuated by the method of construction of the said elevated road and the manner of its use. The suggestion that if no rental damage is awarded then no fee damage can be allowed is without merit. It depends very largely upon the use to which the premises may happen to be put for the time being as to whether rental damage is suffered or not. Thus, the lot may be used for a coal yard, and the rental damage because of the existence and operation of the elevated railroad would be nothing. And yet, such existence and operation might seriously affect the value of the lot for the purpose of improvement, and hence fee damage be suffered. We think the judgment should be modified by striking out the rental damage, and affirmed as to the fee damage and the costs, without costs of appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the evidence in this case furnished any foundation for an award of rental damage. The fee value of the premises, however, seems to have been seriously affected by the existence of the elevated railroad in front thereof. And this damage is accentuated by the method of construction of the said elevated road and the manner of its use. The suggestion that if no rental damage is awarded then no fee damage can be allowed is without merit. It depends very largely upon the use to which the premises may happen to be put for the time being as to whether rental damage is suffered or not. Thus, the lot may be used for a coal yard, and the rental damage because of the existence and operation of the elevated railroad would be nothing. And yet, such existence and operation might seriously affect the value of the lot for the purpose of improvement, and hence fee damage be suffered. We think the judgment should be modified by striking out the rental damage, and affirmed as to the fee damage and the costs, without costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1139, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 302, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-manhattan-railway-co-nysupct-1895.