Case ID: ny-st-rep_39/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harriet S. Rumsey et al., Resp’ts, v. The New York & New England R. R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed July 2, 1891.)
    
    Verdict—Second trial.
    Where, upon substantially the same facts, the verdict on a second trial is in conformity to the law as laid down by the court of appeals on a reversal of the former judgment, it will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon verdict.
    Action to recover damages claimed to have been occasioned by defendant’s railroad being built between plaintiffs’ dock and brickyard property and the channel of the Hudson river, and to compel the removal of said railroad at the point in question.
    The facts are the same as on the former trial of the case. See 114 N. Y., 423; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 928; 125 N. Y., 681; 34 N. Y. State Rep., 454.
    On this trial judgment was rendered for $10,500 damages and for the removal of the railroad.
    
      W. C. Anthony, for app’lt; H. H. Hustis, for resp’ts.
   Dykman, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon the second trial of the cause.

Upon the first trial the decision was in favor of the defendant, and that judgment was affirmed at the general term, but reversed by the court of appeals.

The law being thus settled in favor of the plaintiff, the second trial was had in conformity with the decision of the court of appeals ; and the case presented being substantially the same, the judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

Upon the authority of the court of appeals, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.