Opinion · Nylaw New York

WICKHILLER v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, 146 App. Div. 875 (1911)

CONRAD WICKHILLER, Respondent, v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT Co. andMANHATTAN Ry. Co., Appellants., 146 A.D. 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1911)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1911-01-01
Topic: general

WICKHILLER v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, 146 App. Div. 875 (1911) CONRAD WICKHILLER, Respondent, v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY andMANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellants.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. July, 1911.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed WICKHILLER v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY, 146 App. Div. 875 (1911). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

WICKHILLERv. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY,146 App. Div. 875(1911)

CONRAD WICKHILLER, Respondent,v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY and

MANHATTAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

July, 1911.

PER CURIAM:

On an examination of the facts of this case we are satisfied that the rental damage should be restricted to a period subsequent to the opening to the public of the subway, viz., June 10, 1905. The judgment is, therefore, modified by striking out the allowance for rental damage prior to that date and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Ingraham, P.J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ.

Judgment modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Order to be settled on notice.