New York Elevated R. Co. v. Fifth Nat'l Bank
135 U.S. 432 (1890)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

New York Elevated R. Co. v. Fifth Nat'l Bank, 135 U.S. 432 (1890)

New York Elevated Railroad Company v. Fifth National Bank

No. 106

Argued November 13, 1889

Decided May 5, 1890

135 U.S. 432

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

A party cannot take exception to a ruling under which a trial has been conducted by his procurement or with his acquiescence.

In an action by the owner of a building and land abutting on a street in the City of New York against a company which had constructed an elevated railroad and stationhouse over and along the street, the plaintiff claimed damages for the injury to the use and enjoyment of his property by obstructing the passage of light and air and diminishing the rents, and also for the permanent injury to the market and rental value of the property. Evidence offered by the plaintiff of the value of the building before and after the construction of the railroad was excluded by the court upon the defendant's objection. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's damages should be limited to the date of bringing the action. But the court ruled that they might be recovered to the time of the trial, and evidence was introduced in accordance with that ruling without objection or exception by the defendant to the admission of the evidence or to the ruling under which it came in. Held that the defendant could not except to a subsequent refusal of the court to admit evidence that the value of the plaintiff's property had been increased by the construction of the railroad, nor to an instruction allowing damages to be recovered to the time of trial, nor to the refusal of an instruction, requested by the defendant after the charge, that the recovery could be had only for the permanent injury to the plaintiff's property.

Page 135 U. S. 433

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.