Philips v. New York Elevated Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Philips v. New York Elevated Railroad

42 N.Y.S. 1131

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 42 N.Y.S. 1131 (Philips v. New York Elevated Railroad) 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

Philips v. New York Elevated Railroad, 42 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

BARRETT, J.

The judgment in this case should be affirmed for the reasons assigned in the opinion handed down in the action brought by the same plaintiffs against the Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company and another (42 N. Y. Supp. 33) with regard to No. 59 Murray street. We think the sum allowed for fee value in the present case, and also the award for rental damages, were fair and reasonable. The questions of law are substantially the same as in the Murray Street Case, and have been sufficiently considered in the opinion above referred to. No. other questions calling for special consideration are here presented. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

BARRETT, J.

The judgment in this case should be affirmed for the reasons assigned in the opinion handed down in the action brought by the same plaintiffs against the Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company and another (42 N. Y. Supp. 33) with regard to No. 59 Murray street. We think the sum allowed for fee value in the present case, and also the award for rental damages, were fair and reasonable. The questions of law are substantially the same as in the Murray Street Case, and have been sufficiently considered in the opinion above referred to. No. other questions calling for special consideration are here presented. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.Y.S. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philips-v-new-york-elevated-railroad-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack