Morning journal and courier., 1882-10-19
AN IMPORTANT DECISION,

AN IMPOfSVANT DECISION.
 The decision by the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Rufus Story against the New York Elevated Railroad Company is very important one. The plaintiff sued to restrain the company from constructing and operating it's road through Front street, op- posite his premises. No proceedings had been taken to condemn his interest in the street, and he claimed, through his counsel, that the company was appropriating his property. The defendant, in it's answer, de. nied that Mir. Story had the title which he claimed in the street road bed, denied that he would sustain the injury which he claimed, and insisted on it's right to build and use it's road through Front street. The action was tried in the Court of Common Pleas in Octo- Der, 1877, and resulted in judgment for the railroad, Judge Robinson holding that the city owned the fee of Front street, opposite the plaintiff s premises, that the plaintiff was not and never had been seized of the same In fee, and that he was not, as abutting own CT, entitled to an injunction to protect his premises from any interference by the de- fendant with the street, or with the right of free passage through it. From this judg-
 
 term of the Court of Common Pleas, and that body, on Nov. ?, 1877, affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the complaint on it's merits. Mir. Story then carried his case to the Court of Appeals The appeal was heard in May, 1881. and the court then ordered a reargument. The final arguments were made last June in Saratoga, John B. Parsons and William M. Evarts ap- bearing for Mr.. Story, and David Dudley Field for the New York Elevated Railroad Company. It was on these arguments that the decision just rendered was based.
 The decision reversed the decision of the General Term ot the Court of Common Pleas and ordered new trial on the merits of the case. The decision means, says Mir. John E. Parsons, one of the attorneys of Mir. Story, "that when 1t can be shown that private property has been made to suffer by the building of the elevated roads the owners of that property may sue for damages, and re- cover them. Of course, the amount to be recovered will depend altogether upon the estimate which jury may place on the dam- age done MT. Story's suit, which 1t has taken over five years to decide, presented to the courts Q question which had never before arisen, the question of the liass bility of the elevated roads to compensate the owners of property along their line. The New York road took the ground that the city owns the streets in fee simple, and could au- thorize their use for any purpose whatever We held that Mir. Story, under his deed, owns the land to tho middle of the street, and that the building of the road over the street was an infringement of his property rights The Court of Appeals has decided that our view of the matter is right, and that decision prac- tically opens the door for redress to every property owner whose rights have really been infringed upon"
 This decision gives the elevated railroad companies good cause for anxiety. If they have to pay for all the damage they have done property in New York city they will not pay large dividends for some time to come.