Henney v. Brooklyn Elevated Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Henney v. Brooklyn Elevated Railroad

27 N.Y.S. 1112, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 728, 75 Hun 543

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 1112 (Henney v. Brooklyn Elevated Railroad) 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

Henney v. Brooklyn Elevated Railroad, 27 N.Y.S. 1112, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 728, 75 Hun 543 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the' plain-tifE against the defendant. The action was for the recovery of damages to property, resulting from the construction and operation of the defendant’s elevated railroad, and to restrain its operation. The trial was before a judge, without a jury, and we find no error in the record. The portion of ■the judgment which provides for an injunction would be erroneous if it was absolute, and the proceedings for the condemnation of the property had been instituted previous to the commencement of the action; but such proceedings were instituted subsequent to the commencemnt of the action, .and the restraining portion of the judgment will become inoperative, upon the payment of the sum of money awarded. Under such circumstances, we •see no reason for a reversal of the judgment The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the' plain-tifE against the defendant. The action was for the recovery of damages to property, resulting from the construction and operation of the defendant’s elevated railroad, and to restrain its operation. The trial was before a judge, without a jury, and we find no error in the record. The portion of ■the judgment which provides for an injunction would be erroneous if it was absolute, and the proceedings for the condemnation of the property had been instituted previous to the commencement of the action; but such proceedings were instituted subsequent to the commencemnt of the action, .and the restraining portion of the judgment will become inoperative, upon the payment of the sum of money awarded. Under such circumstances, we •see no reason for a reversal of the judgment The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 1112, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 728, 75 Hun 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henney-v-brooklyn-elevated-railroad-nysupct-1894.