
    PETER KEARNEY, Respondent v. THE METROPOLITAN ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Appellants.
    
      Refusal to find a request to find a conclusion of law on the question of damages, when not error. The court was requested to find as a conclusion of law, that in computing the compensation to be made to the plaintiff for the taking of his easements the defendants were entitled to have taken into consideration the benefits resulting to plaintiff and peculiar, thereto; the court refused the request. Held, no error; the matter.requested was not a conclusion of law. but a mediate process in applying, the rule of measure of damages in ascertaining the damages.
    
    
      Finding of the loss in the rental valtie of the premises, effect of. Held, that such finding means the loss on the whole of the building; that all parts of the building had been considered; such parts as to which there had been a loss of rental value, and such parts as to which there had been ' an increase of rental value, and that taking all parts together there had been a loss; that benefits are not to be deducted, from the damages but to be considered in ascertaining whether there were damages.
    
    
      Shadows cast by a structure not immediately in front of the premises. Ik was argued by the appellants that the court erred in admitting testimony as to light being cut off by shadows cast by a station which was twenty-five feet south of plaintiff's premises, on the ground that the plaintiff had an easement only directly in front of his premises. Held, that the testimony was properly admitted, that appellants' position was inconsistent with the practical use of a street intending to benefit property upon it, as more light is thrown on a house from the sides than immediately in front.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.
    
      Decided March 3, 1891.
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon findings of fact and law made by a judge at an equity term on a trial before the court without a jury.
    
      Davies & Rapollo, attorneys, and Julien T. Davies and Brainard Tolles of counsel, for appellants.
    
      Edwin M. Felt, attorney and of counsel, for respondent.
   The Court (per Curiam) held as stated in the headnote and affirmed the judgment, citing Neuman v. Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Co., 118 N. Y. 627, and distinguishing Kings Co. Fire Insurance Co. v. Stevens, 101 N. Y. 417.  