Case Name: Lippe v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-27
Citations: 10 N.Y.S. 519
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lippe v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 10
Pages: 519–519

Head Matter:
Lippe v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. et al.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
June 27, 1890.)
Trial—Findings of Fact—Amendment.
In an action to restrain the operation of defendants’ railway on the avenue in. front of plaintiff's property, the court first found that such avenue was kept open in like manner as other streets in the city “are, and of right ought to be. ” Subsequent findings were to the effect that such avenue was used by defendants for unauthorized purposes, and judgment was given for plaintiff. Meld, that the court had power at the next term of court to amend the first finding so as to make it conform to the other findings and the decision.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Charles Lippe against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and the Manhattan Railway Company, to restrain the operation of defendants’ railway in front of plaintiff’s property. The second finding of fact of the court was to the effect that the avenue on which plaintiff’s property abutted was kept open for a public highway “in like manner as the other public streets and avenues” in the city “are, and of right ought to be.” Subsequent findings were to the effect that the said avenue had been devoted by defendants to purposes inconsistent with the purposes for which it was opened, and the court gave judgment for plaintiff. At the next term of court an order was made amending the second finding of fact by inserting at the end thereof the words “except as hereinafter found,” the object of the amendment being to make the finding conform to the other findings, and to the decision actually made.
Erom such order defendants appeal.
Argued before Truax and Dugro, JJ.
Davies & Rapallo, for appellants. Saokett & Bennett, for respondent.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the court of appeals in Bohlen v. Railway Co., 24 N. E. Rep. 932, (decided June 17, 1890.)