Case ID: ny-st-rep_67/html/0720-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Syracuse, Resp’t, v. Richard M. Stacey et al., App’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
    
    
      Filed May 4, 1895.)
    
    Appeal from “ an order made in said proceeding at a special term of said court held in Syracuse on May 19, 1894, * * * denying, motion of said defendants and others to send back to the commissioners of appraisal herein the report made and filed by them on May 7, 1894, and requiring and directing them to make a further or supplemental report, and from the whole of said order.”
    
      George Barrow, Knapp, Nottingham & Andrews, and Charles A. Hawley, for app’lts; C. L. Stone, W. A. Beach and Geo. N. Kennedy, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

Having at this term reached the conclusion, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Hardin, P. J., in City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 67 St. Rep. 704, that the judgment and order appointing the commissioners should be reversed, and appraisal vacated, and the order of confirmation reversed, it is unnecessary to pass upon the questions presented by the appeal herein, and the order should be vacated and set aside. Order denying motion to ' send back to the commissioners of appraisal herein the report made by them on May 7, 1894, vacated and set aside without costs to either party upon this appeal.