Case Name: BYAM K. STEVENS, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-01-06
Citations: 25 Jones & S. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: BYAM K. STEVENS, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 57
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
BYAM K. STEVENS, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Action for injunction and damages for construction and operation of the Mevated Bailroad in front of plaintiff’s premises—Decision in the Abendroth Case, 54 Superior Court, 420, applied.
Held, that it is immaterial for the purposes of this case whether the plaintiff had or had not any interest in the fee of Pearl street in front of and adjacent to his premises, and in regard to other objections taken by the counsel for the defendants on the trial of the case, that no error was committed that requires a reversal of the judgment.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham J.
Decided January 6, 1890.
Appeal from judgment entered upon the decision of the court at special term.
Davies & Rap alio, attorneys, and Edward S. Rapadlo and Samuel B. Rogers of counsel, for appellants.
6r. Willett Van Nest, attorney and of counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court.—Ingbaham, J.
The decision of the general term of this court in the Abendroth Case, 54 Super. CL 420, is binding upon this court, and determines adversely to the defendants the question as to the right • of the plaintiff to maintain this action and to the. relief granted by the judgment, for it is there stated by Truax, J., that it was immaterial for the purposes of that case whether the plaintiff had or had not any interest in the fee of Pearl street in front of and adjacent to his premises, and in that opinion the chief judge concurred.
The other objections taken by counsel for the defendants have been examined, but we do not think that any error was committed that requires a reversal of the judgment.
The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed with costs.
Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.