New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-10-18

said. cas- have not vet heard its text AS oue'i
stand the matter the decision below Is reverseu anu
a. c,sa sent down for new trial. vi
coprse This doesn't end the matter lh'
orastion il still open whether anybody mas peen
damaged by the elevated railroads. thihN III Is
Tho Judgment of the best people that the properly
nlon,, the r,,ds has really been benefited. Real
estate men who deal IN real property III 'ne Nii"'S
of Third and Sxth-aves tell me that the gross rents
there have more than doubled since the roads were
Lp;lt They have attracted business there and con-
eentratcd il and made them great shopping avenues
Resides. the roads have built up the upper portion
of the city and almost doubled the value o. ousi-
ness property" -,
"But how about the residence property MI
Gould; is not that injured by the roads Y
"Of course the roads might damaOe residence residence
property for that purpose but II Wo9iu If his
to say that the owner Is actually dailage1u -
property has been enhanced III Nalue tVi 49, IN
purposes This is the same question 'nah oo Ior e
with every railroad aud there Is no telsil,x VIZ
AZ tbinC will end When the building of the roaus
first began people said they were gong 10 ues.ivs
real estate. thought so myself am f rtrivS ~
some nroperty had nj Sxth-ave. and ihlrty
M for \ little over 100000. Yesterday my proHer
came in and told me that il had increased III Nalue
n"v,n ,," over 6 per cent on million dollars"
'"s How does the Story case affect the different
elevated railway companies - IL ,,i.,, any, 90
a TIE Manhattan has nothing TO 60 Win any VI
the suits Under a clause III the tripartIe agIee-
ment the New York and Metropolitan companies rs
sume all claims for damages of this klnu OroaShl
against them. The clause IS as follows:
Ali civil actions and proceeding and all judgmehts
and causes OF action, and all claims MhaeN vAcNP S
herein excepted existing the 31st day OF january
1879 apainsi the New-YOrk and Metropolitan Compa-
MES shall remain chargcable against them reSp'ceH
aud solely.
"The story suit is against the New York Company.
We have an express contract with the city iOr In
identification for any Judgment OF inns kihu IL
should be found against us. We rent the streets
for Der cent of the net earnings OF the company,
and The city is bound to hold us harmless IN our
occupancy. The contract is IN the statute Wn i
saws that he payment of the per cent rs speclneo
sshall be the legal compensation III 1uII lor the
use and occupancy of the streets by said railway,
as provided by law, and shall constitute an agtSe-
ment i'll The nature OF q contract between sau Guy
and constructing company, enttnnS tne Ht'ei oI
its successors to the privileges ana rates OF ARE
heretofore or herein legallzed. and so forth' OT
night against the city in the event that we are
ever held for damages, rests on the very ialnlllaI
principal that owner OF properly must give
nlear title 10 his tenant. The Metropolitan Com
pany has such protection, the clause oeihe oii'
ted from its charter 20 ,u
9 How Will your right to decentralization by the
oity DO eStab lished ." .
1.-THE question will probably come up in q
suit against the city by the New-YorK
COMPANY in case of an ultimate recovery, but the
action for damages will first go TO the United otal es
Supreme Court for determination. Or we coulu
bring suit in equity, and require the city by some
writ or another TO keep us harmless; I'm not
LAWYER and don't know exactly. We have paid
great deal of money 10 the city undert the coauaGt
Up to July l. 1882, it amounted to I'll ,o3t 90
and Is. l3l 5S more will be paid by NOVenioet l.
That makes $l16766 Al"