New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-11-10
RIGHTS ~ RECTOR STREET.
Holm H. GLOVER'S CLAIMS MAINTAINED
.u,pGE INGRAHAM's DECISION IN SUIT AGAINST
THE ELEVATED RAILROADS.

TrDGF INGRAHAMS DECISION IN a SUI h"''-''i
THE ELEVATED RAILROADS
.Indge Ingraham, in the Superior Court, Spe-
cia Te1p handed down his decision yesterday IN Inc
suit of John H. Glover against the Manhattan ana i've
Nceyor Elevated Railroad companies to restrain them
. onarotne the road IN front Of the plaintiffs prem
sa at The southeast OF Greenwich and Rector SIS
The suit was begun nearly two years ago. about thee
weeks after plaintiff had purchased the property IN
ouestion and the tried before Judge lhSiHhah
last spring.
The piolntl who is lawyer alleged that the property
involved in the suit part Of the land reserved oS
the Grown in the early days Of The colony OF NewforR
known AZ Governors Garden. aud afterwGrd ~ Queens
Garden These lands. he asserted, were reserved from
lands granted the city by the Dongan aud Montgomery
charters aud conveyed 10 the Trinity Church cor
marathon in 1908 The city acquired the fee oil Inc
street in front of the premises and the defendants never
took proceedings condemn the interest Of the phnth
therein The plaintiff also alleged that the railroad
structure obstruCted the street, excluding light ana Ar
and destroying the privacy OF the occupants ana ha 'nc
rumble and noise from the engines, with other dscom
forts diminished the market and rental value OF 'ne
property about 40 per cent The complaint iufh'r set
forth that the defendants had constructed
denot In Rectof-st extending beyond the Of the
plaintiff property and that the defendants we're moi pay
ING any conversation for the OF the plhnfs prop
crty The plaintiff therefore prayed that the defendants
might he cnjOued from operating the road IN 'front.' OF MS
pre1nses that they might be compelled 10 remove the
same and that Judgment FOR damages he given. Richard
+ swcezy and John T. Parsons appeared for the pdnih
and David Dudley Field and Henry H. Anderson Tor Tue
defendants.
The theory Of the plaintiff" said Judge Iusraham. In
rendering his decision, lis not that the defendants are
liable To the plaintiff for building the road, bat mat hey
are liable tie use Of The plaintiff property That such
IN action can be maintained IS wei settled IN this state
The Court Of Appeals, in the OF story against the
Nsv-York Central Railroad Company, has decided NAT
the plaintiff had an easement IN the streets IN from OF h
premises and that N entitled 20 dn injunction r.
srainin the use by the railroad company of such prop ny
II p make no difference at what time he bCcam" the
owner of the property bat he Is entitled Ia Or p'i'ctc
agajuyt an Unauthorized Appropriation, Whr''I dlHitu
bei0r,. the commencement Of Tie action
Judge InraEam tben reviews the history 81 VI. Ii2i
Of trfrnwich-st in front or the plaintiffs prop
eITy. passed 10 the city OF Nc"- YORK ny !As
/ l78i but by Tie conveyance the properly
was TO be held by the city yU0iic stree. forever
aud this condition, think gave tue "Tl.. Oh '' yo
ng property right and PRIVILEGE OF havuS me Str,
kept open forever SUI h. hdeI me FIlH'l' a." '
AGAINST The Elc, scd Railroad Company th -nch ilsht
was Incorporated hercdtament' ana INA, u ion
dcncd with 1t. The extent OF the ca-',n a- also prrh
settled ia the Story case iia thS t"s'l''m, y w. io
the kept OPEN 80 that from II access may re u 70
the lot and light aud air furnished across tt open way
that above the surface there can be no M OBSTRUCTION
10 the access OF hght ana ar 10 tue wv " ~
AUDITING owner IL docs mol appear ihAl TIE l., %
Judge Ingahan Is of the opinion, therefore, that the
fee OF C,reenwiche T. IN the city, -tc p The eo ncnl
sppurenaut to plaintiffs BOT, and that tue !cc oi one
haff OF Rcctor-st IN front Of the paintns properly ir
vested IN the piautifl subject To l- use public
street" ii Las held, he ssi thai Tie Legislature
has no power 4 railroad the right 10 huid upon "a
highway without compensation 10 the owner " u, re-
The elevated prevents 10 Some extent iHc inc
/ access to the plaintiffs lot; a. oO>curts the
| light and TO some extent the free circula-
non OF air II foiUss that toe plaintiff
is entitled 10 judgement restraining The defendant fom
continuing the OF Lis property The statute duc- not
prevent the title The OI RcctOT7t run passing
~ the the plautn, or tr posse--iUn ~ Tie rat
road company 90 presumed 10 bo "a naturalization
4 70 the rights OF thc owner
In conclusion he says: 81 I'm " the opinion that the
defendants have appropriated and u.hR the property
OF The ulanuG hi. consent and without
saon and lhat The plaintiff Il entitled to Judgment"
But owing 10 tire unsatisfactory c.ruCc OF the rental
Xalup of me property, says 81 uiHE that the plaintiff
should recover 800 pr year for The OF he property
| Appropriated and JscG ~ the dticntant-'
As lie defendant had not a-kfdIlUNdcd the vdlpc OF
the easement were found and TIE paid OJ tie
d,fcndanis-tha the injunction sought shoad be- dcicd
Judge IngIahaln eIOn- dcicnuants from using tur
pr0IrrN Ol the plaintiff in 81 cnvgh and Rector SIS, but
directs mat the injunction shall not issue until the dc
fcuqant- ave Il reasonable tine 20 acquire the plaintiff
property granting months Tor this purpose. 10 j.
not necessary, he says to dct mime iIc Ie Of the &c
| PENDANT RectOrsL for Iae elc' dled station