Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Emigrant Mission Committee of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant, 1900 — 165 N.Y. 604 · caselaw · US
General
The Emigrant Mission Committee of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant
165 N.Y. 604·New York Court of Appeals·1900·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Emigrant Mission Committee of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company, Appellant.
Emigrant Miss. Com. v. Brooklyn El. R. R. Co., 20 App. Div. 596, affirmed.
(Argued October 25, 1900;
decided November 27, 1900.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 12, 1897, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.'
This was an action for an injunction and damages by reason of an elevated railroad erected and operated in the street on which plaintiff’s premises abut, and also by reason of the ,ele vated railroads and other structures of the defendant erected on its own land, around and adjacent to the, premises of the plaintiff, situated on the easterly end of Broadway, in what is now the borough of Brooklyn.
Alex. S. Lyman for appellant.
Stephen M. Hoye for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam,]
Per Curiam,
While the decision of the trial justice is in some respects loosely drawn, as we read it, the award of damages includes nothing for the maintenance of defendant’s structures upon its own land, but coniines the judgment to damages for the maintenance of the structure in the public street in front of the plaintiff’s land. As thus construed, there is no legal objection to the decision, and the judgments of the courts below should, therefore, be, affirmed, with costs.
Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ., concur.
Judgments affirmed.