Case Name: Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company, Resp't, v. Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-02-11
Citations: 66 N.Y. St. Rep. 311
Docket Number: 
Parties: Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company, Resp’t, v. Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 66
Pages: 311–311

Head Matter:
Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company, Resp’t, v. Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 11, 1895.)
Appeal from an order enjoining defendants from conveying passengers between Coney Island and Thirty-Sixth Street Depot for less than the rate prescribed in the contract under which the •depot was built by the parties.
Morris & Whitehouse, for app’lts ; Wingate, Cullen & Miller (Geo. W. Wingate, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from an order restraining the defendants in this action from carrying passengers between the Union Depot, in Brooklyn, and Coney Island, upon the Brooklyn, Bath & West End Railroad, for less than fifteen cents for a single trip, or twenty-five cents for a round trip, for an adult, or for less than half those rates for children between the ages of five and twelve years. The action is based upon a contract between the plaintiff and the Brooklyn, Bath & West End Railroad Company which secures the right to the plaintiff which is sought in this action, and the violation of which is restrained by the order of the special term from which this appeal is taken. This action is denominated suit "No. 2" between these same parties. Suit No. 1 has been tried and decided in favor of the plaintiff. It was an action for the specific performance of the same contract, and the judgment in that case is an adjudication of the validity of the contract and decisive of this appeal. We have affirmed the judgment in that case upon the opinion of Judge Cullen, and it follows that this order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.