Case ID: nys_15/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dugro, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stroub v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
    
      (Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
    
    July 2, 1891.)
    Eminent Domain—Procedure—Injunction.
    Under Const. N. Y. art. 1, § 6, which provides that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, an elevated railroad company will he enjoined from constructing an. additional track in front of plaintiff’s premises, unless it has acquired the right to impose such additional burden on plaintiff’s property by condemnation proceedings as provided by Laws N. Y. 1875, c. 606. Affirming 14 N. Y. Supp. 773.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by John L. Stroub against the Manhattan Railway Company to restrain defendant from constructing an additional track in front of plaintiff’s premises. Plaintiff moves to continue preliminary injunction. The motion was granted, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Freedman, P. J., and Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ.
    
      Smith & Perkins, for appellant. Davies, Short & Townsend, for respondent.
   Dugro, J.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent defendant from unlawfully taking his property. For the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned judge at special term (14 N. Y. Supp. 773) an injunction which will prevent this wrong should have been granted. The order appealed from contains a provision by which defendant is in effect provided with a way to obtain plaintiff’s property other than that fixed by statute. As the facts presented do not show a necessity for such extraordinary aid, it should not have been granted. The order appealed from is modified by striking therefrom all therein that follows the words “or until the further order of this court,” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “or until the defendant shall have obtained the right to enter upon tile said premises in the way provided by statute.” As thus modified the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant. All concur.