Knoth v. Manhattan Railway Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Knoth, from certain portions of a judgment of the. Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of December, 1904, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Knoth, from certain portions of a judgment of the. Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of December, 1904, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term. The facts found by the trial court, and which are important in the consideration of the questions of law involved, are that the defendant, a domestic corporation, operates a railway in front of' the plaintiff’s premises under rights acquired from its predecessor,, the New York Elevated…
1Concurrence
Ingraham, J. (concurring):
I concur in the affirmance of this judgment.' The proposition that .the defendant bad no authority to lay this third track is not open to discussion in this court. (Auchincloss v.. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 69 App. Div. 63.) The act of the defendant, therefore, in constructing this track was unlawful and for the -damage -caused to the plaintiff thereby the plaintiff has a remedy at law. Whether or not a court of equity would interfere by injunction to prevent a continuance of the unlawful act rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, and in determining'…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gray v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Auchincloss v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902