Case Name: Lewis Seasongood et al., Ex'rs, Resp'ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App'lts; Lewis Seasongood et al., Resp'ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-18
Citations: 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 935
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lewis Seasongood et al., Ex’rs, Resp’ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts. Lewis Seasongood et al., Resp’ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 44
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
Lewis Seasongood et al., Ex’rs, Resp’ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts. Lewis Seasongood et al., Resp’ts, v. The New York El. R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
Appeals from judgments in favor of plaintiffs, entered on reports of referee.
Sackett & Bennett, for resp’ts; Basies <6 Sapallo, for app’lts.

Opinion:
Patterson, J.
The appeals in these actions are from judgments entered upon the "eports of a referee and may be considered together. The only matter requiring particular examination is the correctness of the refer, e's findings as to the amount allowed for damages to the rental value of certain premises; these being common law actions to r>. cover for alleged loss of rents in consequence of the construction, maintenance and operation of an elevated railroad in front of the premises mentioned in the complaint.
On an examination of the referee's reports we do not find any error in the principle upon which he awarded damages or in his conclusions as to the amount of damage sustained. He has expressly considered the subject of the property having been benefited by the railway structure being built in front of it and the location of the station, and he found as matter of fact that special benefits had accrued to the property in consequence thereof and that as matter of law they must be set off against the damages sustained and with that fifiding of fact and conclusion of law in each case he directs judgment for specific amounts which on all the testimony we think he was justified in adopting as the fair balance of damages to which the plaintiffs were respectively entitled.
Judgments affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and O'Brien, J., concur.