
    Edward D. Farrell, Resp’t, v. Manhattan Ry. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct. 1 D.
    June 14, 1895.
    
      F. A. Tuttle, for app’lts; F. M. Felt, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

— We do not think that the evidence in this case furnished any foundation for an award of rental damage. The fee value of the premises, however, seems to have been seriously affected by the existence of the elevated railroad in front thereof. And this damage is accentuated by the method of construction of the said elevated road and the manner of its use. The suggestion that if no rental damage is awarded then no fee damage can he allowed, is without merit. It depends very largely upon the use to which the premises may happen to be put for the time being as to whether rental damage is suffered or not. Thus the lot may be used for a coal yard, and the rental dam-ace because of the existence and operation of the elevated railroad would be nothing And 3ret, such existence and operation might seriously affect the value of tile lot for the purpose of improvement,-and hence fee damage he suffered. We think the judgment should he modified by striking out the rental damage, and affirmed as to the fee damage and the costs, without costs of appeal.  