
    Ann Reilly, Respondent, v. Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Per Curiam:

It is urged by the appellant that the learned court erred because it states among its grounds for the decision that the value of so much of the plaintiff’s easements belonging to the premises No. 922 Third avenue, over and abo\ e the value of any and all general and special benefit to said premises arising from the construction, maintenance and operation of said elevated railroad in front of them, as was taken by defendants, was and is the sum of $1 ,'200. It is claimed that this statement is clear and positive; that the value of the easements taken over and above any benefits conferred on the premises is $1,200; and that the court overlooked the point that the easements themselves had been adjudged by the Court of Appeals to have had no value in themselves, but that it is the damage to the premises to which they were attached resulting from their destruction, for which compensation is awarded. We think it to plain that the learard court attempted in follow the rule in the Court of Appeals is this respect; and that there is no question but that resultant damage was that for which compensation was intended to be made Upon an examination of the evidence we see no reason for interfering with the court below, and think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Present— Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Parker, JJ.  