Case Name: Arthur T. Goodenough, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants; Henry A. Siebrecht, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants; Albert Wadley, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1919-02-04
Citations: 225 N.Y. 699
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arthur T. Goodenough, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants. Henry A. Siebrecht, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants. Albert Wadley, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Arthur T. Goodenough, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants. Henry A. Siebrecht, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants. Albert Wadley, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company et al., Appellants.
Goodenough v. N. Y., Westchester & Boston Ry. Co., 173 App. Div. 948, affirmed.
Siebrecht v. N. Y., Westchester & Boston Ry. Co., 173 App. Div. 950, affirmed.
Wadley v. N. Y., Westchester & Boston Ry. Co,, 173 App. Div. 950, affirmed.
(Argued January 21, 1919;
decided February 4, 1919.)
Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 12, 1916, afiirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The actions were to restrain the defendant from operating its railroad through certain lands in the city of New Rochelle in violation of restrictive covenants of record. The judgment in each case provided that the railway company should be enjoined and restrained from maintaining the embankment on certain lots in the Sickels tract owned by it, and from operating trains over the same, with a proviso that upon paying the plaintiff damages, with interest, it should be relieved from the said injunction and entitled to a release from the plaintiff, his heirs and assigns, from any claim which had arisen or might arise by reason of the maintenance of the said embankment, station and other structures, or by reason of operating trains over the same.
John B. Knox and George S. Graham, for appellants.
Richmond J. Reese for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment, in each case, affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Ceane, JJ.