General
Siebrand Niewenhous, Appellant, v. The Manhattan Railway Company and The New York Elevated Railroad Company, Respondents
112 A.D. 895·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1906·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
Siebrand Niewenhous, Appellant, v. The Manhattan Railway Company and The New York Elevated Railroad Company, Respondents.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of tue Supreme Court, entered in the clerk’s office of the county of New York on the 29th day of June, 1905, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The plaintiff’s proofs failed to establish that he h id suffered any diminution in rental value, but we think they did show that he was entitled to some fee damage. A dismissal of his complaint was, therefore, error. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Present — O'Brien, P. J., Patterson, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Houghton, JJ. Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order filed.