Soper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Soper v. City of New York

71 A.D. 618, 75 N.Y.S. 969

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

DecidedApril 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D. 618 (Soper v. City of New York) 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

Soper v. City of New York, 71 A.D. 618, 75 N.Y.S. 969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

If the rulings in this case bad been in accordance with those made by the same learned justice in Reisert v. City of New York (69 App. Div. 302) we should, of course. affirm the judgment. It seems to us, however, that evidence was offered by the plaintiff and excluded by the court on the trial now under review which was competent and relevant upon the question of rental value under the rule as to the measure of damages adopted by the court in the Beisert case. The difference in the crops produced by the. plaintiff’s land before and after the abstraetion of the water was certainly material as affecting the question whether the rental value of the property had been changed by reason of such abstraction or not. Owing to the exclusion of this evidence we shall be constrained to grant a new trial. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. All concurred.

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

Per Curiam:

If the rulings in this case bad been in accordance with those made by the same learned justice in Reisert v. City of New York (69 App. Div. 302) we should, of course. affirm the judgment. It seems to us, however, that evidence was offered by the plaintiff and excluded by the court on the trial now under review which was competent and relevant upon the question of rental value under the rule as to the measure of damages adopted by the court in the Beisert case. The difference in the crops produced by the. plaintiff’s land before and after the abstraetion of the water was certainly material as affecting the question whether the rental value of the property had been changed by reason of such abstraction or not. Owing to the exclusion of this evidence we shall be constrained to grant a new trial. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D. 618, 75 N.Y.S. 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soper-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack