26 A.D. 57 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1898
This is the usual suit for an injunction and damages affecting premises Nos. 420 and 493 Greenwich street in the city of New York. The sums awarded for fee damage were $500 as to each property, and rental damage was allowed at the rate of $50 a year.
Apart from the merits, we think this judgment must be reversed for errors in rulings upon evidence. The testimony of the plaintiff’s expert was directed to showing the course of values in Greenwich street; and the defendants, on their own behalf, after having elicited from their expert similar testimony, asked him in addition for a statement of the price at which lie had sold another and entirely different piece of property on Greenwich street in 1892. This was objected to by the plaintiff “ on the ground that it is not within the issues and that it raises a collateral issue and is within the prohibition of the Jamieson case.” The defendants’ counsel then stated to the referees : “ I offer this evidence, not for the purpose
It will' thus be seen that a considerable part of this record is taken up with testimony admitted over objection, which, in the case of Jamieson v. Kings County Elevated Railway Company (147 N. Y. 322), and in many other cases, was held to be incompetent. (Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 365; Matter of Thompson, 127
We think, therefore, that the evidence of independent sales and rentals introduced by the defendants under the limitations stated came directly ivithin the rule in the Jamieson case, and seasonable objections and exceptions having been taken, the judgment for that reason must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred..
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.