Case Name: JAMES P. KERNOCHAN, Individually and as Executor, etc., Respondent v. THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-13
Citations: 27 Jones & S. 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES P. KERNOCHAN, Individually and as Executor, etc., 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: 59
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
JAMES P. KERNOCHAN, Individually and as Executor, etc., Respondent v. THE NEW YORK ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
Damages, Evidence—Immaterial refusals to find—Evidence as to what . would have been the rental and fee value of the property had the railway not been built was objected to on the sole ground that it was incompetent— Held, that the objection did not call for the exclusion of the evidence. An expert witness having testified on direct examination as to his opinion of the fee and rental value, was asked on cross-examination whether he had based his opinion in part upon the possibility of the building being used for offices; he replied he had—Held, that a motion by defendant to strike out his direct testimony was properly denied, because, the substance of his testimony was that he based his opinion upon the uses to which the building could be put and among them its use for offices. Defendants' counsel requested the trial judge to make various findings of law on the subject of damages; the requests were refused and exceptions taken. Held, whatever may have been the merits of the requests considered as general propositions of law, yet the refusals were not detrimental to the defendants, since the findings which were made showed that in the award of damage no damages were given by reason of any matter embraced in the requests.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J,, and Freedman, J.
Decided February 13, 1891.
Appeal from a judgment entered in an equity action, upon the decision of the judge' upon a trial before the court without a jury.
Davies & Rapallo, attorneys, and Julien T. Davies and Samuel Blythe Rogers of counsel, for appellants.
G. Willett Van Nest, attorney and of counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
The Court held (per Curiam) as stated in the headnote, and affirmed the judgment.