The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-02-02
RAEox~ Luz


Philip s. Fan Rensselaer, cs. The Hudson River Rail-
road Co-Ths was IN application on the part of MIR.
praisement (apponted under the amended charter Of
the company to estimate the damages sustained BY
served on them In this It appeared from counses
statement, and the papers read behalf Of Mr. Van
Rensselaer,, that the company determined to the
intended road In front Of his country residence Ia
Duchess county which, 1t alleged fronted on the
Hudson River for about mile and quarter. That
Mr. Van Rensselaer, although satisfied that by by do
ing 30, the beauty Of his house and dsmesne as q
country residence would be considerably injured and
the a the 81
road through his grounds leaving the question of
pensatien for further adjustment believing that he
was friendly to the enterprise and large subscriber
litigation would be likely to place. 1t further
appeared, that by the original charter the company
to the property in the FIRST and that
subsequently tho charter had been amended. That
1ns IT H. the
made 1t obligatory on them to make ofer of COM
promise, repealed by the amended charter) to as
certain eoppulsoriiy the damages sustained by Mr..
Van Rensselaer, without any previous of ami
cable arrangement That the petition the company
for the appointment Of commissioners confined the
question Of damages to the value Of the land be
taken for the railroad whilst the statute counsel
alleged directs the damages to be not ony
for the value Of the lands taken but also for the land
iDjurously affected. That the commissioners, in
their certificate Of appraisement, found the value
reference to whether the adjoining land would or
would not be purously affected by the intended ros
Mr. Van Rensselaer, being dissatisfied with the eertih
cate Of apprasement 1t not having disclosed, IS his
counsel alleged, upon whst grounds it was made
whether merely as to the lands actually taken, or
whether 1t included all other damages in relation to
the adjoining property he caused writ Of certorsri
issue out Of the Supreme Court he statute allowing
no appeal from the commissioners apprasemsnt COM
handing them to set forth the and whether
tuch appraisement included damages for the land
iDjurously affected, 60 To which the commissioners
put In demurrer and thereby insisted they not
bound by law to put in the required The ques
ton discussed the motion was whether the demurrer
should be overruled, and the commissioners compelled
to amend their return in the matter required by the
writ On tbs part Of Mr.. Van IL strongly urged
that they bound to comply with the require
of the writ that IL such requirements objection
able they should have applied to qussh the writ or to
amend IT. but az long Is IL remained full force they
bound to obey It. Counsel went very fully into
law on the subject Of certioras and enforced his views
by citing great number Of adudged cases, showing
that was the only remedy for the plain
ed o. there being no right of appeal from the decision
OF the commissioners. Counsel for the ners
and the company, contend that the had no ju-
rsdction; that they concluded by the charter,
and therefore, had power to examine into the test
mopy taken by the commissioner, or to require them
to give the upon which their award based or
TO furnish the items of which 10 composed and that
therefore, the commissioners could not be compelled
make the return required by the writ In support Of
his view of the he cited various decisions of the
Supreme Court Decision reserved.