Case ID: ny-super-ct_59/html/0564-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE HEROLD, Respondent v. THE MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
    
      Abstract proposition of law, it is not error to refuse to find on matters , which may be evidence of benefits, a refusal to find them not error. From the fact tjiat after an elevated railroad has been established in front of premises there is no diminution of rental value but on the contrary a . steady increase of it, it does not follow that the lessening of light, air and . convenience of access had not a hurtful effect on the rental value.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Dugro, J.
    
      Decided March 9, 1891.
    Appeal from a judgment.
    
      Davies & Rapallo, attorneys and of counsel, for appellants.
    
      Sackett & Bennett, attorneys, and Charles Gibson Bennett of counsel, for respondent.
   1 The Court (per Curiam), in affirming the judgment, held Ms stated in the head-note.