Case Name: Van Allen and Another v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-03
Citations: 3 Misc. 53
Docket Number: 
Parties: Van Allen and Another v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 53–54

Head Matter:
Van Allen and Another v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company.
(New York Common Pleas
General Term,
March, 1893.)
Jurisdiction once acquired by a court of equity is not afterwards lost. Plaintiff brought action against the defendant railroad company for injunctive relief and for damages to his property. Pending the litigation plaintiff transferred said property. Meld, that the court did not lose jurisdiction thereby and that an award in compensation of damages was proper.
This action was begun in 1888 to recover damages caused by the construction and operation of defendant’s elevated railroad in front of plaintiff’s premises, and for an injunction to restrain the further maintenance and operation of the said road. In 1891 the case was sent by consent to a referee. In 1890 the property was transferred by plaintiff. The referee accorded that plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief at the time he brought action, but by reason of the transfer of the property in question he was not entitled to injunctive relief at the time of trial, but that he was entitled to past damages for six years prior to the summons, and down to the time of the sale, and awarded damages accordingly. From this judgment defendant appealed.
Wolff <& Hodge {J. Asjoinwall Hodge, Jr., and Robert Sewell, of counsel), for plaintiff (respondent).
Dmies t& Rapadlo, for defendants (appellants).

Opinion:
.Pryor, J. (orally).
The precise point now presented Has not appeared in any other case. Hitherto the question was whether, when a party sues in equity, upon equitable grounds alone, claiming equitable relief only, and fading to establish that he ever had any title to equitable relief, he might still proceed as in an action at law, and recover a money judgment for damages. The decision, both of this court and the Court of Appeals,' was against such a contention. Here it appears that when the action was instituted the plaintiff had a valid claim to equitable relief — the referee so finds — and the question is, shall he be turned out of court for matter happening pendente lite, or will the court, its jurisdiction having attached, go on to award compensation in damages — the only relief now available? We understand the rule to be that jurisdiction once acquired by a court of equity is not afterwards lost; but the court will proceed to administer whatever relief is open to the party. The analogy of this case to a suit for specific performance is perfect and controls our decision.
It is the unanimous opinion of the court that the judgment should be affirmed.
Daly, Ch. J., and Bisohoff, J., concur.
Judgment affirmed.