People ex rel. Brisbane v. Zoll

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Brisbane v. Zoll

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 317

DecidedOctober 15, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 317 (People ex rel. Brisbane v. Zoll) 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

People ex rel. Brisbane v. Zoll, 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 317 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of Special Term affirmed with one taxed bill of costs to the respondents. Meld, that it is clearly to be inferred from the appeal book that the assessors in reaching the conclusion that, no damages were sustained by the relators’ set-off against the damages proved, the benefits which were found to have accrued to the relators from the change of grade, and in so doing, as we think, violated a rule of law. Meld, also, that the statutory limitation of one year did not begin to run until the physical change of grade was actually made.

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

Judgment of Special Term affirmed with one taxed bill of costs to the respondents. Meld, that it is clearly to be inferred from the appeal book that the assessors in reaching the conclusion that, no damages were sustained by the relators’ set-off against the damages proved, the benefits which were found to have accrued to the relators from the change of grade, and in so doing, as we think, violated a rule of law. Meld, also, that the statutory limitation of one year did not begin to run until the physical change of grade was actually made.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-brisbane-v-zoll-nysupct-1881.