Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Kent
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Proceeding by the Manhattan Railway Company and another against Julia A. Kent, individually and as trustee, and others, to acquire so much of the easement appurtenant to premises owned by defendants, and known as numbers 1, 3, and 5 New Bowery, in the city of New York, as has been taken by the maintenance of petitioners’ elevated railway in front of such premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Proceeding by the Manhattan Railway Company and another against Julia A. Kent, individually and as trustee, and others, to acquire so much of the easement appurtenant to premises owned by defendants, and known as numbers 1, 3, and 5 New Bowery, in the city of New York, as has been taken by the maintenance of petitioners’ elevated railway in front of such premises. From an order granting defendants’ motions for costs and for an extra allowance, and amending the final order so as to direct the recovery of such costs and allowance, petitioners appeal.…
1Opinion of the Court
PEE CUB-IAM.
We see no reason for interfering with the order Appealed from. The statute is explicit in its terms defining the circumstances under which parties to these proceedings are entitled to costs. It is true that there was an adjudication of the superior court that the parties were unable to agree as to a price; but there is no allegation in the petition, or any evidence, that any offer had been made which could possibly relieve the petitioners from the payment of costs. Under these circumstances, under the statute the defendants were entitled to the costs which were allowed them by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bley v. Village of HamburgAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903