Murphy v. New York Elevated Railroad

The Superior Court of New York City

Murphy v. New York Elevated Railroad

8 Misc. 683, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 313

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedApril 15, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Misc. 683 (Murphy v. New York Elevated Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. New York Elevated Railroad, 8 Misc. 683, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 313 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Gildersleeve, J.

This is the usual action in equity, by the owner of premises abutting upon the defendants elevated railroad, to restrain the defendants from the further maintenance and operation thereof. Judgment was given at Special Term awarding past damages, the price of the easements taken by the defendants fixed, and an alternative injunction granted. The questions of fact raised depended upon conflicting testimony. There is sufficient evidence in support of plaintiffs’ contention to sustain the conclusions reached by the learned court at Special Term, and with such conclusions the General Term will not interfere. The trial court was manifestly guided by correct principles of law, and properly applied them.

The exceptions to rulings upon questions of evidence are unassailable. We find no valid objection to the judgment.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Dugro, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Gildersleeve, J.

This is the usual action in equity, by the owner of premises abutting upon the defendants elevated railroad, to restrain the defendants from the further maintenance and operation thereof. Judgment was given at Special Term awarding past damages, the price of the easements taken by the defendants fixed, and an alternative injunction granted. The questions of fact raised depended upon conflicting testimony. There is sufficient evidence in support of plaintiffs’ contention to sustain the conclusions reached by the learned court at Special Term, and with such conclusions the General Term will not interfere. The trial court was manifestly guided by correct principles of law, and properly applied them.

The exceptions to rulings upon questions of evidence are unassailable. We find no valid objection to the judgment.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Dugro, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Misc. 683, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-new-york-elevated-railroad-nysuperctnyc-1894.