Stevens v. New York Elevated Railroad

The Superior Court of New York City

Stevens v. New York Elevated Railroad

57 Jones & S. 416, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 361

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 6, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 57 Jones & S. 416 (Stevens 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

Stevens v. New York Elevated Railroad, 57 Jones & S. 416, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 361 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Ingbaham, J.

The decision of the general term of this court in the Abendroth Case, 54 Super. CL 420, is binding upon this court, and determines adversely to the defendants the question as to the right • of the plaintiff to maintain this action and to the. relief granted by the judgment, for it is there stated by Truax, J., that it was immaterial for the purposes of that case whether the plaintiff had or had not any interest in the fee of Pearl street in front of and adjacent to his premises, and in that opinion the chief judge concurred.

The other objections taken by counsel for the defendants have been examined, but we do not think that any error was committed that requires a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Ingbaham, J.

The decision of the general term of this court in the Abendroth Case, 54 Super. CL 420, is binding upon this court, and determines adversely to the defendants the question as to the right • of the plaintiff to maintain this action and to the. relief granted by the judgment, for it is there stated by Truax, J., that it was immaterial for the purposes of that case whether the plaintiff had or had not any interest in the fee of Pearl street in front of and adjacent to his premises, and in that opinion the chief judge concurred.

The other objections taken by counsel for the defendants have been examined, but we do not think that any error was committed that requires a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 Jones & S. 416, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-new-york-elevated-railroad-nysuperctnyc-1890.