Van Allen v. New York Elevated Railroad

New York Court of Common Pleas

Van Allen v. New York Elevated Railroad

22 N.Y.S. 704, 3 Misc. 53, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 767

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMarch 13, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 N.Y.S. 704 (Van Allen v. New York Elevated Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Allen v. New York Elevated Railroad, 22 N.Y.S. 704, 3 Misc. 53, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 767 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PRYOR, J.,

(orally.) The precise point now presented has not appeared in any other case. Hitherto the question was whether, when a party sues in equity, upon equitable grounds alone, claiming equitable relief only, and failing to establish that he ever had any title to equitable relief, he might still proceed as in an action at law, and recover a money judgment for damages. The decision both of this court and of the court of appeals was against such a contention. Here it appears that, when the action was instituted, the plaintiff had a valid claim to equitable relief, (the referee so finds;) and the question is, shall he be turned out of court for matter happening pendente lite, or will the court, its jurisdiction having attached, go on to award compensation in damages,—the only relief now available? We understand the rule to be that jurisdiction once acquired by a court of equity is not afterwards lost, but the court will proceed to administer whatever relief is open to the party. The analogy of this case to a suit for specific performance is perfect, and controls our decision. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that the, judgment should be affirmed. AE concur.

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

PRYOR, J.,

(orally.) The precise point now presented has not appeared in any other case. Hitherto the question was whether, when a party sues in equity, upon equitable grounds alone, claiming equitable relief only, and failing to establish that he ever had any title to equitable relief, he might still proceed as in an action at law, and recover a money judgment for damages. The decision both of this court and of the court of appeals was against such a contention. Here it appears that, when the action was instituted, the plaintiff had a valid claim to equitable relief, (the referee so finds;) and the question is, shall he be turned out of court for matter happening pendente lite, or will the court, its jurisdiction having attached, go on to award compensation in damages,—the only relief now available? We understand the rule to be that jurisdiction once acquired by a court of equity is not afterwards lost, but the court will proceed to administer whatever relief is open to the party. The analogy of this case to a suit for specific performance is perfect, and controls our decision. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that the, judgment should be affirmed. AE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.Y.S. 704, 3 Misc. 53, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-allen-v-new-york-elevated-railroad-nyctcompl-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack