The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-02-01
Supreme Court-Spcclal Term.
INFORMANT DECISION
HtSnr1 Jp,tj.a RnzavpI.


Timothy Uggn he Malor. .9iie,mcn Sc cf M ctiy ot
Ntr loh-Ihe order Of the Supreme Court confirming
the report Of commissioners Of estimate ami
is judgment and The unit assessed the proper
~ isa speoal lien on the premises benefited paramount
to ali Other eus Whatever II Is len for twenty years
The statute iesPcctrg tho city OF New YORK passed IN
April 1873. - to he construed ,iberal!y
This as The papess show If substantially coutrover-
sy between the Corporation OF the Bank England On
the one side and the Corporation OF the city New
iork on the other arising o the i'm
ptsed more than tyave years ago upon the large pro-
pefty IN Plot street formerly belonging - jacob
Pati for the benaiit derived and expense in widening
John street A. the time waen the proceedings tor the
improvement were instituted IN December, 1856 and
down 10 Mny. 1885 Platt the Of the loa ia
question. Timothy Wisgin, who residing in eng.
y becoming largely indebted TO the bank he on the
ilih November, lSi2 morlcaged the premises to the
plaintiffs IN this suit acting bhalt Of the baak
secure The rum 81 = l.5 Ot0 sterling and this suit Is
otought 10 oreco,e That mortgage and to lht vail
dfy OF the claim Ct tae corporation Of the city
paramount lien on The premises The commissioners az
estimate and aSesst ut appointed BY the late Gu
preme Court, on the 25d September 1856 ami heir
pert q the amounts Of damage ana ben fit in respect to
eaeh lot aAeotd by the Improvement, confirmed by
the same court "a the ~ April 1889 The hrst ohec
tiop trken TO the assessment that in describing the
rtmtses and The parties interested the commissioners
oh no notice OF tie charge oi ownership tcoG fati to
Wiggls
lst The commissioners % REQUIRED by the law n 1927
at least fourteen 0ays before making their report the
court depoit.a COPY Of the estimate ana essssm mt,
as made by them, in the County Clerk, oHioe for the
inspection of whomsoeTer il might Germ /"
I'd They gave notice according the sane req uire-
ment (lS2J ty advertifereIt In at least tive Of the
public newspapers that they had deposited their
port ard designated also the day winch il would be
presented to the couit tor confirmation.
Cd This notice was no. addressed to Jacob Pat or
to any other individual named but to any and every
Ft!oa whose lights might be sasctel 81 VINO mad any
'sohjectious to make
4lh On tie day and in the court so designated all OBJ
Jectos, whoever they might be, invited TO make
inei allegations Of any ana every matter against the
report.
5ih Mr. platt made none. Mr. Wiggin male none
Neither gave any inaticn of the change OF ownership
or ofany objection TO the report in consequence Of such
charge.
9th. Tho ebsngc 50 FAR az the effect of the Commis.
Eoners report CT rs continuation concerned Of
no impoItalse to either Plat or Wigyin
As 10 Plat the mere ip.efticn OF his name. whether
hcm negligence or Ijsioformation did not MAKE hia
personally liable tor the assessed and ii it
cid Wlggin could not ccmpsin of Tho irufy to plat.
A 70 ggn ne knew the iyt must pay the assessment
vi ethfr The ownership changed not. lie there
ee although duly noaaed by the advertisement 1.-The
ptTty ireIes.eS, furnished no Information and made
no objection ether 10 the Com mission.rs or to the
court but quietly ,ases tae 70 Am uuimcestant error
10 uEcosreeted and the report in that in al other
rcssectr. to Nccr firmed by the court
Can then, such Judgment. u the highest court Of
giual iurisdicon in the state rsns cred upeu full
"tssrIg' h. row npea he'd acd that too coaterally,
A. not ty wa OF spee after the lapse Of nearly tht
teen sars aue on accornt Of ~ eror error q, ell 40
tval % th9 ore referred 70 and so utterly in1rsnt
e The party Interested, judgment, moreover whica
70 Ia ~ e Is Ieats 10 tie ustatss OF expense aa
~ atctMtnt or epfof0oRm NJ upon The different pre-
Gues dttnei 70 be 3sushtteG, - ~ the terms o The
law (.ecton liSJ made lna and conclusive upon all
reg Gus NAtinsOeyer" The second objection taken "
RE rslts 49, hat admitting the assessment 70 be vail
tie s-ge lien created BY Satisfied by The ae
ci lie p8tmses, mags by tee Cooperation the 9th
November, 3sli Tor The term of Il sc huAdrsi years,
Tie lrrcha at this sails wa, William TJrrey who
y; The sgnt u Higsia lie ubeIlen y Gs,ig ned the
certificate .. pnrchese - j. u B.4tchfori acting
LehG bcth G. WssH Sn1 The Bank OF England After
ile sale aEJ before tae two ears-he period allowed By
lsw for pon-had X1red defect discovered
IL !ls notice 10 ledeeni. icb n case between other
parties halis5 been carsied t. The Court VI App.ils
vas proncuLctd fatal 10 the proceeding che sale
eIetoIe although valid in it'it bAcdme inoperltise
sld Mr. BI.lhicrd, behalf OF the bank, instead OF
rcposi1g crLdrm II, sisied on The defect AID de-
Ct the Corporation AID received return OF the
eIiEe ruzchase money, with interest beirg the ful
sDornt Of le assessment sni a the Charges thereOn
sid paid oTer the fane 70 he bcrx The bank nov
WIN ths refunded money ia It's vaults insist, that The
Z I" hltholga imperative and yeidrg D. fruit wat
=, ~ it. owners from al clen, account thereof
sven PrPoAuon supported ~ any r3id rule i!tv,
Lag eer.alh. ~ FeTJ eI1sbe features 10 rec3mlen3
II % tae itYor 81 tEe court
am y oyn'1a, aiter careful examination thai 1t
hss 10 fuTIdrt - Jaw. justice ot equity
II is contsndet By the riaisnA, counsel that tho
power 81 ftlng again ana again by the 1orpogaeioui
uioa theig own defaults entirely osfst- she fsh. ~
tbf ONntr 70 nave the asssssIatnt r. chagei " me
te ~ q te4s .o Hhch the property was strLc4 o Lne
ilEs - that hey Them elves u tAis were an IN
JpiH co.nIeiattd IN IT. iniction. Ihey insisted on -
e' diug ne htst sale when i AZ The option by
1aiflg ~ iDiciMeity - gise Il effect and -enJeTs
sscoFa tas pf fLfctssGy Hiby preferred the lien %
charGe - Ras q i've nuuirrd years Outstanding on
M re ~ st. yit.llg noIeut, 10 the iieu charg4
clta,te ~ se ofSasi assessment II was competent ipr
1.a n ~ r.. ana 10 raIy M Arst sale TOT saving
e'Le tlls, lazy maze no liGh ROW T. tet up the rs'
IS ngra ae Ctch4ed x heir inst1uce, and ~ tler
bth'3 - sausiect y cr - complain THAI their pro.
Euiy ybich has received tie aiysltnge Of an improve
ths Jcr Nbih i Las never paid should oe held charge.
a. bi Wtn ~ cost Of making IT, iusie@d Of shifting
sAe oufsfn 10 tn shoulders Il the genera lax pager
* has been husgcsttd "a argument that these parti
cuRr lrgmises although assessed f9r o raa share Of
he eAPefse derived u TACT no cores bensdtfeon
the enlargement 81 the street in heic vicinity On hat
point u s sufficient 20 ray that the parties have already
hSa Two heafgs or at least two opportunities oi being
besIeone before the Commissioners and one before the
court ana that ~ II essential 10 the peace and good
eraer oi the community TIA some time or other,
tLrIe LII, thsnla &c az endo ntigaticn
Tbs third objection raised by the plaintiffs is that.
samitig me assessment to have been valid, AMI not
itsLGfgeu by the imperative sale get all clam unier
at lhS late Day is barred BY the statute q Liia-
rms ). .,