Case Name: James P. Kernochan, Individually, and as Ex'r and Trustee, et al., Resp'ts, v. The New York Elevated R. R. Co. et al., App'lts
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-01-06
Citations: 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: James P. Kernochan, Individually, and as Ex’r and Trustee, et al., Resp’ts, v. The New York Elevated R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 29
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
James P. Kernochan, Individually, and as Ex’r and Trustee, et al., Resp’ts, v. The New York Elevated R. R. Co. et al., App’lts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed January 6, 1890.)
Evidence—Opinions as to value.
In an action against an elevated railroad a witness was asked to give the rental value for the following years, with and without the road. This was objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, not within the issues and not a proper method of proof. The witness was allowed to answer. Similar testimony was subsequently given by both sides without objection. Held, that, under the circumstances, the objection in the form in which it was taken was unavailing, and that no error was committed calling for a reversal.
Appeal from a judgment rendered at an equity term of this court. 0
The judgment awards to the plaintiffs the sum of $1,720.50 damages and costs, and an injunction restraining the defendants from the further maintenance and operation of their elevated railway in front of the premises, No. 160 Pearl street, unless they pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $8,000,
B. Tolies, for app’lts; O. W. Van Ness, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
All the questions presented on this appeal háve been passed upon by the general term of this court adversely to-the defendant except the objection to the question put to one of the experts called by the plaintiffs, whereby the witness was requested to " give the rental value for the following years, with and without the road."
To that question the defendant objected as "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not within the issues of this action, and not a proper method of proof."
The objection was to the whole question and so far as the question required the opinion of the witness as to the value of the property at the time, the evidence was clearly competent The attention of the court was not called to the objection now urged that the portion of the question that required the witness to give his opinion as to the rental value of the premises without the elevated railroad was incompetent and no motion was made to-strike out any portion of the answer after it was given. Considerable testimony was subsequently given on the same subject by both plaintiffs and defendants without objection.
Under these circumstances we think the objection in the form it was taken was unavailing. An examination of the whole case has satisfied us that the findings are sustained by the evidence and the result would have been the same if the evidence now objected to had not been received.
We think therefore that no error was committed that requires; a reversal of the judgment, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J., concur.