The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-30
RAPID TRANSIT.

SUIT OF THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD
COMPANY AGAINST THE NINTH AVENUE RAIL
ROAD COMPANY
There appeared recently In the HERALD a statement
OF tho facts contained in the complaint in a SUI,
brought by the Now York Elevated Railroad Company
to recover $500, 900 damages from the Ninth Avenue
Railroad Company. The substance OF that complaint
was that the facts on which SUIT Tor injunction had
been Instituted by the Ninth avenue pany against
tho Elevated company were untrue or grossly
aggeratcd as to amount 10 untruth; that the temper
airy injunction issued on such facts and subs cquenty
dissolved on tho trial OF tho cause had injured tho
Elevated company 10 the extent for which damages
are sought TO DO recovered, aud that the injunction
suit was not brought IN good faith.
The answer Of tho Ninth avenue company TO this
complaint, which Messrs. Robinson and Scribner the
oompanys attorneys have served Messrs. Field and
Deyo attorneys Tor the Elevated company, sets forth
that 1t the Ninth avenue company Is the owner Of
valuable real estate fronting Oh Ninth avenue, the
city Of Now York, on the easlerly side thereof be-
tween Filtythird and FIFTY uith streets liable to be
injured. ana winch has boen injured and deprecated
value by The constructions use and operation OF the
painils elevated railway and structures referred to
~ lhe complaint; that though plaintiff was nou1ed 10
show cause why INC preliminary Injunction COM
nsver did snow cause. ana made any motion
tho dissolution OF such injunction until alter the trial
oil tnefcton hlu Deen cOmpieted nor ala plant ut
tempt Or make any effort TO nave the order OF nJuuc
ton vacated otherwise than by the trial OF
the cause, but on The contrary. acquiesced In tho
order OIL Injunction until the action had been tried
and decision rendered, when che order was vacated
aud The injunction dissolved and that any ANA all ad
Journmcnts OF the hearing under the order TO show
cause which had were on the application OF tue
present PLAN III Tho answer TURNER states that
piain,i1 put to no expense IN the action in tue
Common Pleas, on which the present action founded,
other than that required Tor tho defence thereof on
the tral, and similar to tue expenses ordinarily iu
dat IN N In Lac fh.tu fnn,
aud expenses or the defendant that action, and all
the dauagos the Elevated Railway Company eau
now recover against TINS defendant havo al
ready been paid In .uli by the defendant; that
Ihc trial Court of Common Pleas
u was found and decided, among other things, that
the construction ana operation oi tho Elevated road
IN Nnth avenue, above Thirty fourth street. aud all the
railway structures ths CONSTRUCTION and use OF which
THIS Defendant sou-ht 10 restrain by the commence-
mcn oil that action ia the Court OF Common Pleas,
Wy procuring said preliminary order or INJUNCTION,
were not authorized by law, ''Dut was, were, is and
common nuisance and that such anding aud
decision remains OF record and in fun iorce and effect
in the court.
ACTION BROUGHT IN GOOD FAITH
As to the allegation OF bad iauh contained In the
compInt the answer asserts that the action IN tho
Court oil Common Pcas was brought IN good aIth and
without malice, anu that tao defendant had probable
cause 10 believe ana did believe aud was advised by
his euunsc learned y the Law that such action would DC
sustained; tLat defendant had probable 10 bccvo
and did Ueeve that the elevated UeiIg
constructed Without lawful authority, ana propelled
By engines Unauthorized by law, and expected. as
since proved 10 be the ac that rreptuue injury and
loss would result 10 defendant, US SUIT Tor damages
IN inc then huancial condition o tho present paintn
would have pccn Insufficient ami Intellectual, de-
iendant could have no adequate remedy at law. Alter
reciins The TACT, that before bringing the INJUNCTION
su!t complained OF Il accession had been rendered
against the Elevated road In tue suit brought by John
Palten, leading the defendant 10 believe tnat tho
acts OF the Elevated COMPANY were wrongful
and without authority Of Law. Tho answer con-
cudes by alleging that defendant, before bring
ing the original suit and ob.iiapg the teli.
pvraT! INJUNCTION, gave Un undertaking 10 tho
eject that. IN tho event OF aceat, defendant
would pay to the Elevated company auch damages,
not exceeding 81 OOO as might DC sustained Oy reason
OF the njuact.on, ana that on the lOlh vi November
last defendant paid to .ianln 81 600, pursuant to
such undertaking mat this was all tue damages plain
TN could calm by reason OF the INJUNCTION, aud IT'S
paymcut ana acceptance oy the plaintiff, together
with SZ3v O5 as COSTS, WAS IA TACT and IN law IN full
satisfaction aud discharge oil any amt all lebIhty
Cured by The defendant TO the pup by OF the
action or the injunction Lssucc therein.
One oil The counsel connected with the ltisations IN
opposition 10 rapid transit expressed tho opbion that
RAPID transit was not yet tout OF the woods" aud
might become the subject OF utdre legislative action,
especially Ia reference To damages claimed by Some OF
the properly holders on tue various routes