
    August Klipstein, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Co. et al., Appellants.
    (New York Superior Court—General Term,
    May, 1894.)
    In an action against an elevated railroad it is not error for the court to refuse a iury trial of the question of past damages, although the claim for such damages was obtained by the plaintiff by assignment.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    This action was brought by Janette Pirsson and others to recover an injunction and incidental damages in December, 1889. In May, 1890, said persons conveyed the premises in question to this plaintiff, who was afterwards substituted in their place. The conveyance included any claims which the parties of the first part, or any of them, had or might have against the defendants by reason of the cause or causes of action set forth in the complaint herein.
    On the ti’ial the defendants moved for a jury trial of the cause of action as to past damages acquired by plaintiff by assignment, which motion was denied.
    
      -John E. Parsons, for respondent.
    
      Dories (& Rampollo, for appellants.
   Dugro, J.

The only question on this appeal is whether it was error to refuse a jury trial of the question of past damages, these damages having been obtained by the plaintiff through assignment.

The principles stated in the cases of Shepard v. Manhattan Railway Company, 117 N. Y. 442, and Hunter v. The Same, N. Y. Law Jour. March 16,1894, when applied to the question, necessarily lead to an affirmance.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  