Case ID: nys_44/html/1115-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIEDEL, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    March 19, 1897.)
    Action by Henry Died el against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and the Manhattan Railway Company.
    W. H. God-den, for appellants.
    C. A. B. Pratt, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We think that the fee damage allowed is supported by the evidence. The rental damage, however, is too high. That of No. 375 Third avenue should be reduced to $72 a year, and of No. 513 Third avenue to $120 a year. The extra allowance contained in the judgment must be correspondingly reduced. The judgment should be modified accordingly, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs to either party,