Case ID: johns_20/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Bayard and others against Healy.
    
    In the proceedings under " the act to reduce several laws, relating particulaily to the city of New-York, into one act/9 (2 JV. Re L0 342» sess. 36» ch= 86.) relative to streets* &c. in the city of New-Yorfc? the assessment laid by the corporation for that purpose, and the notice thereof, must describe the property assessed, with accuracy and precision, so as to apprize the owner distinctly of the ground charged for the expense of the improvements» If, therefore, the assessment describe lots fronting on S» fee/’wide In without men-depth,8 and and conveyed by the corporation, as °na£¡ “ about 100 feet deep,” when, in fact, the lots of EL. were only 75 feet deep, such conveyance will not be construed to extend the lots in depth, beyond 75 feet, so as to include the lot of B. in the rear, and which fronted on another street.
    EJECTMENT for a lot of ground, in Ridge-street, in the city of Mew-Yorh, tried at the JYew-Yorh sittings, before Mr. Justice Wan JYess, in JYovember last. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on a case. The title to the premises in question was admitted to be hi the lessor of the plaintiff, subject to the operation of the assessment, laid by the corporation of the city of JYew-Yorh, for filling up Stanton-street, and the proceedings under it.
    It appeared, that E. Rancher, a city surveyor, in 1784, laid out a block of land, being part of Belancey^s farm, and the tier of lots, including the premises in question, fronted on Ridge-street, each lot being 25 feet in front on that street, beginning at the corner of Stanton-street, and each 100 feet deep; and the lots have been so described as fronting on Ridge-street, in all the conveyances since that time, and have been assessed for ordinary taxes, which were paid by those from whom the plaintiff derived his title. The lot in question was conveyed to the lessors of the plaintiff by the trustees of Isaac Moses, as fronting on Ridge-street, being the fourth lot from the corner of Ridge and Stanton-streets.
    By the ordinances, assessments, and proceedings of the corporation, which were given in evidence, it appeared, that pursuant to the resolutions of the board, an assessment was laid upon lots in Stanton-street, to defray the expense of filling up and repairing that street; and that three lots, beginning at the northeast corner of Stanton and Ridsre-streets, and described as fronting on Stanton-street, each 25 feet wide, and belonging to Benjamin F. Hashins, but without mentioning the depth, were included in the assessment. Haskins became the purchaser at the sale, for the term of 90 years; and the conveyance to him by the corporation, described the lots as lying on the north side of Stanton-street, between Ridge and Pitt-streets, being part of a block distinguished on the Helancey farm, by number 24, lying adjoining to each other, and containing, together, about 75 feet, front and rear, and about 100 feet deep; bounded on the south, in front, by Stanton-street; on the west, by Ridge-Street ; on the north, in the rear, by other part of the said block number 24, &c. 
    
    
      T. L. Ogden, for the plaintiff.
    
      Bogardus, contra.
    
      
       This case was decided in August term last.
    
    
      
      
         The following diagram will show the interference of the lots sold by the corporation, with the lot owned by the lessors of the plaintiff:
      
        
      
    
   Per Curiam.

This is an ejectment for á house lot, fronting on Ridge-street, in the city of JYew-York. The title of the plaintiff to the lot in question is admitted, unless1 his title has been devested by virtue of a sale under an ordinance of the corporation, for non-payment of an assessment for filling up Stanton-street.

The assessment was upon three lots “ on the north side of Stanton-street,” as the property of “ Benjamin F. Haskins,” numbers 4, 5, 6, being 25 feet front, and no depth mentioned.

The deed from the corporation specifies about 25 feet, front and rear, and about 100 feet deep.

This deed, if it extend more than 75 feet in depth, will include the premises in question, and defeat the plaintiff’s title derived under Isaac Moses.

There was nothing in the assessment, or any other proceedings on the part of the corporation, to apprize the plaintiff that any lots were assessed except those fronting on Stanton-street.

On the part of the plaintiff, it is shown, that in 1784, Evert Bancker, city surveyor, laid out the lots to front on Ridge-street; that the lot in question was conveyed to the lessors of the plaintiff, by the trustees of Isaac Moses, as fronting on Ridge-street, 25 feet, front and rear, and 100 feet deep; and it has been so described in all the conveyances since 1784 j and, as such, it has been several times assessed for ordinary taxes, paid by Moses and others : but the whole square was open, unoccupied ground, without monuments, or enclosures, when assessed and sold.

The principle cannot be tolerated, that the true owner can be devested of his title by such vague and indefinite proceedings, on the part of the corporation. Before they can give an operative conveyance under the statute in such cases, the assessment and notice must be such, as to apprize the owner distinctly of the ground so charged for the improvements. It is remarkable, in this case, that Benjamin -F. Haskins is advertised as owner of the lots fronting on Stanton-street; and he is the purchaser under the corporation. Now, although Haskins, being the owner of the three corner lots, had a right to alter the location and allotment, so as to front on Stanton-street, as it appears he did; yet it seems very clear, that he must have known, that those lots extended only 75 feet in depth; instead of “ about 100 feet,” as expressed in the deed to him from the corporation.

Upon the whole, we think it a very clear case for the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

L