New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-02
THE M'KNIGHT ACT INVALID.
DEOIeION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DENYING APpLICA ATOMS TO HAVE THE QUESTION
OF DAMAGES IN ELEVATED RAILROAD
SUITS DETERMINED BY JUMES
OTHER DECISIONS.

Albany, March | tspeclal).-AhlOhg inc uc'i''o'7
handed down by the Court of Appeals TO-DAY were two
which involved the validity OF the socalled Mchnsho
bill which was an amendment TO Section $40 OF the
Code of Civil Procedure designed TO enable the ee-
waited railroad companies to take their land dama7o
the equity courts and have the amount Oh
damages decided by jury. The decision OF Inc 'o"rV
of Appeals reverses the decisions of the courts below
and holds that the application to send uicSc equity
cases 10 jures must be denied.
This amendment to the Code the second Oh Inc
extraordinary which the elevated railroad had
before the Legislature last year for the purpose Oh ue
feating claims of property owners along thcr routes,
and il slipped through the Legislature without It's real
character being discovered because it appeared upon
It's face 10 he alteration in the metod OF tlai
I'm equity courts After it became law it was DIS
covered that in reality it revOlutonzed all the former
practice in equity and deprived them ol ue jun
dotion which they had possessed from time h'-
memorial 10 determine such questions OF fact a1sihe
in equitable actions. The other measure was TWO
year statute limitation in elevated railroad cases.
which only needed 70 be exposed TO insure It's oolea
The Mcknight bill. however, became law before
the attention of the bar of the state had been called
10 its real character. Governor lill allowed !" ~
become law without his signature II "ehl ho
effect on September H. 1891. Almost lmmcula'cis
thereafter the Manhattan Railway Company went
into the courts with motions in hundreds OIL oases
asking to have them sent to juries for trial Inc
counsel for the companies canddly stated that the
statute had been passed in their interest. Inc
counsel for the property owners in opposing the "p
plcation stated that if the construction cohtchuco III
by the company gwen to this amendment II Wou"
practically prevent the trial OF elevated railroad cases
in the future and leave the property owners remedl
less because each case would have TO be urea hrs'
at great length before jury and afterward before an
eouity Judge and unless all other litigation IN inc
courts were suspended that 1t would require more
than life time to dispose Of the cases now upon '0
calendars. In the superior Court, Judge freeui'an'
and in the Supreme Court, Judge O'BI1en held mat
unless the property waived all past damages
The question OF damages must be sent under 'he
stsute 10 iuries for trial but that where the plain
,Hs consented to "a waiver of damages which they had
suffered in the past, they might still 20 before 'the
equity courts for their relief by injunction
The General Term of the superior Court sustained
Judge Freedman's decision The General Ierin Oh inc
supreme Court has not yet decided the question Each
party appealed the elevated railroad from the part vi
the decision which held that in case of waiver of
past damages the question of njuncuvc relief might
still be tried at special Term, and the plalnuHs ap
pealed from the other portion OF the decision, con
tending that under no circumstances coud any que9
ton arising in these equity cases be sent to jury
These decisions are now reversed by the Court OF
Appeals decisions rendered today and the court hods
that the applications in njunctve suits against the
elevated railroads to have the question of damages
determined by various juries must be denied. Two
test taken 10 the Court OF Appenls In
one Of them W. G. Ieckham, OF the hrI, OF PeGkhan
d. Tyler argued the question of the unconsuuonaity
of the statute; in the Livingston case Charles Gibson
Bennett, OF the firm Of sackett Bennett argued the
other questions. and particularly conended that these
injunction suits did not within the scope Of the
statute, even if it were constitutional, because the
question of damages an issue i'll the case. but
simply the rights of the plaintiffs 10 intuncuOns
against the defendants. Julien T. Davies argued the
appeal for the railroad. The opinion of the Court Of
Appeals written by Judge Gray, fully sustains VI.
BENEFITS contention. Judge Gray says, in sub
stance:
This is one OF the many actions brought to restrain
the defendants from maintaining and operating tier
railway in front of the compIanans' premises with an
accompanying demand in the complaint for incidental
relief by way OF post damages. a motion was made
by the defendants Tor an oruer directing the ques0s
as TO the value OF property and To damages which
the plaintiffs may be entitled to recover 10 be DIS
netly stated for r ey ny puTn. o 70 St ,serS
upon made order which reclted that the defendants
ing the framing Of question for trial by jury as to
the post renl damages and that no question Of
therefore ordered that the motion should be granted
unless the plaintiffs stipulated TO waive absolutely all
event the defendants motion would be denied. Each
party appealed. The General Term affirmed the order
as made. construction OF Section go OF the Code,
amended BY the Legislature in 1891 Chapter 2Jo,
Laws OF 1891, is involved.
The question becomes this Can the section rs
amended be made 70 apply now 10 such purely eqult'
BILE actions! / think that this section never did APP
those, and that the amendments did not make it appi
cable. If this section now applies to purely equitable
actions and creates a right in the party u
a 70 the AMOUNT i Of damage DANA '%en the power
Of the court in equity is materially 9hcrn ana
in a respect which is fundamental for the verdict
which the jury may render would be, by The section.
made conclusive In the equity action, and nus we
would have proceeding quite difcren from what
formerly mode OF nquIng 10 aid and 10 inform
the conscience OF the c0nr, III a proocedlg 70 assss
the damages. II would no longer be permitted 70
disregard the verdict, II against he Conscience and
to render u decree contrary 10 that would be com
PEELED to accept H. only legal errors could Ike awaited
Of the power vested in courts under The Constitution
shOnh be taken away b. impncaii0n yet ,uch wonid
be the result sui aT@ s o6 Of c Pe SsScI
tendency We should have language clearly and I'M
mlsskaby eydenG9g st as the purpose o. 5y
TO hold that the amendment in question has brought
II equitable relief Is denied, the allegations IF dam
age from the Invasion OF the plalnilns rlshts ar
amount in the trial OF the cause Of acton IL iooE'
TO them further than 70 determine II OF sueh sup
court. Hence ii is apparent that finding by Jury
90 the amount Of damages in such an aft3n IS q,e
and could only be proper after affirmative DECISION
upon the right to the Injunction ana IN Gtaef 10
awarded
but merely wdens the tight TO a jury trial IN Those
cases to which the section previously applicable
adopt / say wiser, because il adopt the literal
reading of the section 1t might mischief and de
Law ana multitude OF questions might be raised rs
20 its applicability to cases to which
IL ought To be permitted 10 extend
/ think therefore we must conclude TINT II was an
error for the court below to hold that the defendants
were entitled rs of right, their apphca-
tion uDder section 970. TO order stating the CUES
tons of past damages for trial by jury, and that the
granting of snch an order still rests IN the sole disce
lion OF the trial court sitting In equity The order
appealed from should be wholly reversed, and the
application under section go denied, WIN costs 10
the plaintiffs In the action. ~
Judges Andrews, Finch and MAYNARD concur Chief
Judge Earl and judges Peckham and O'Brien dissent
In the case OF IIenry NJ. BevngstoN, RESPONDENT and
appellant against the New York Elevated Railway and
others appellants and cspOndeDs where similar ques.
tIons were involved, the same opinion was handed
down. =, -
and Others appellants, agt. Robert A. Maxwell, SUI
perntendent OF Insurance the Court OF Appeals to-day
affirmed the Judgment. This appeal from the
Judgment Of lower court sustaining the action Of