New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-02-02
debied to the Bark, he On the 18th Move nSey 1872
sox4n. nreui nlaintlffa In thA suit

acting on behalf OF the Bank, secure the sum OF
fI25000 sterling and this suit Is brought TO Tore
close that mortgage, and to test the validity oil the
claim OF the Corporation Of the City t. paramount
lien on the premises The Commissioners OF Es-
Innate and Assessment were sppolnsed BY the late
,ber renort of the amounts OF damage and benefit In
respect to each lot affected by tae improvement was
con6Ymed by the same Court on the 81 April 1882.
The frat objection taken TO the assessment Is, that
N describing the premises and the parties interest
ID the commissioners took no notice OF tho change
NJ ownership from Plattt WIggin.
Ist The Commissioners. as required bY the law
lsa, at leas, fourteen days before making their re-
mort TO the Court, deposited copy OF the estimates
and assessment, as made by them. In the County
Clerks Office for the inspection OF whomsoever 1t
might concern"
"a They gave notice, according 10 tho same re-
quirement (Sls2), by advertisement In at least two
Of the public newspapers that they had so deposited
their report, and designated also mo cav on winch "
would be presented 10 tho C0ur! for c0nhrmauon.
3D. This notice was not addressed TO Jacoo >.
Plat or to any other individual named. but to any
and every "pcrson whose rights might be Affected,
or who had any objections" to mako.
9TH On the day and In the Court SO designated all
directors, " hoover they might be, were invited 70
make their allegations of any and every "matter'
against the report.
Neither gave any intimaton Of the change Of own.
erhip, or Of any objection to the report In oonse-
Quence OF such change.
9th The cha 90, so far as the effect of The Com.
missonerss' report or its confirmation was con-
cerned, was OF 70 importance to either fiatt wig
GIN
AS TO Piatt, the mere insertion Of his name,
whether from negligence or mlsinformahon oia no'
make him personally liable for the amount assessed
and II 1t did, Wesin could not complain OF the
injury to Platt AS to Nigein, he kne the lots must
pay the assessment whether the ownership were
changed or not He, therefore, although duly Eot
fed BY the advertisement "tte party interested,
furnished no information and made no ogecapn,
either to the Commissioners or to the Court put
RI ant
uucorrected, and tbe report in that AS Ia ali other
respects. 10 he confirmed by the Court
Can, then, such judgment Oft hghes. Court OF
erieiI al jurisdiction IN the State rendered upon uli
"heIIng," be now lnpeached, ana taa' tco, coiate-
rally and not by way OF appeal, after the lapse OF
nearly thirteen years, and on account OF an error II
erIor all tT ial as the one referred TO, ana SO
utterly Indifferent to the party interested Juds-
nent oTeover, which, far at least as relates TO
the estimates OF expense and its assessment or ap.
portionmeDt upon the different premises deemed TO
be benefited Is by the terms OF the law (sectIon 1851
made final and conclusive upon all persons whom
soeyer" The second objection taken by The plain
ts is, that, admitting the assessment 10 be valid the
charge lien created by II was SATISFIED by the sale
of the premises maze by the Corporation on the Ola
November, lsil, for the term Of FIVE hundred years
The purchaser at this sale was William TOney,
who was the agent of Wiggin. He subsequently as
signed the certificate OF purchase to X NJ. Batch
ford acting on behalf both Of Wiggin and the Bank
of England. After the sale, and before the TWO
yeaYs-the period allowed by law for redemption
had expired, cefect was discovered in the notice
TO redeem, which, In case between other par'ies
having been carried up to the Court OF Appeals was
pronounced fatal to the proceeding The sale, there
FORE although valid in itself, became imperative
and Nh Blatchford, on behalf OF the Bank, insse ad
of proposing TO confirm II, insisted on the defect, ana
demanded of the Corporation, and received, areturn
OF the entire purchase money, with interest being
the full amount Of the assessment and all The charges
thereon, and paid over the same to the Bank Inc
Bank now, with the refunded money i'll It's vauits
81 fl,oc IL
ing no fruit was satisfaction OF the assessment,
and discharged both the land and its owners from
all claim on account thereof" Such proposition,
il supported by any right rule OF law has certainly
very equitable feature to recommend 1t to the
favor ofthe Court
am of of opinion, after careful examination, that
it has 10 support in law, justice or equity
II is contended by the plaintiffs counsel that the
power of selling again and again. by the Corpora
uon, upon their own defaults entirely defeats the
right ofthe owner to have the discharged,
by the term Of years for which the property was
struck of. The plaintiffs forget that they them
selves, II this were an IDtury,-cooperatedin It's IN
fiction. They insisted on resembling the first sale,
whenit at their option, b. waving an informal al.
ity, to give it effect, and render second sale I'M
necessary. Ifthey preferred the lien or charge
Of lease Of five hundred years, outstanding on taeF
premises, yielding rent, TO the "ilen or charge"
created by the original assessment it was competent
for them to say So and to ratify the first sale Not
having done this, they have no right now TO SET up
the rescinded sale descended at their instance and
for their beneft) as satisfaction or 20 complain
that their property, which has received the aoyan-
tage of an Improvement for which it has paid,
should be held chargeabe snll with the cost of max.
Ing II instead Of shifting the burden TO the shoulders
offhe general taxpayers.
II has been suggested in argument, that these par
ticular premises, although assessed for pro rata
share of the expense, derived IN fact no correspond
ing benef, from the enlargement OF tne street IN
heir vicinity. On that point. II is sufficient to say
hat the parties have already had two hearings or az
least two opportunities OF being heard-one before
he Commissioners and ole before the Court, ana
that il Is tlalto the peace ana go0d ordcr OF
he community that some time or other, tnere should
be end OF litigation.
The third objection raised by the plaintiffs 49, that
admitting the assessment TO have been valid, and
not discharged by the imperative sale. yet all claim
under IT, at this late day, is barred by the Statute oil
limitation.
AS to the citation of the new Code in support OF
this objection, the Counsel seem to have overlooked
the provision in vs. which declares that the title on
limitations "shal not extend TO actions already com
menced, or 10 cases where the right OF action mas
already accrued The law, therefore, as before eK
sting, whether altered or not by the Code, must fur
nsh the rule Of decision IN the present case
By that law, judgments and sealed instrument,
were liable 10 the presumption OF payment after the
/ lapse Of twenty wears Other claims-such as notes
book-debts sc were barred in SIX years, and some
in shorter periods still. The assessment nQueStion
eady stated, was confirmed on the Sd of April
1882 more than SIX but less than twenty years ago
Is IT, then, in the nature of common demand barred
BY lie common limitation, or is 1t debt OF record
! 81 u The nature OF mortgage
Il certainly is not, although confirmed by the
Court, an ordering judgment, for personal demand
on which an ordinary execution could be issued, OIL
which could be docketed, so as to bind any Other
lands than those specifically assessed IL creates no
lien as judgment, under the law applicable 10 Ju1g
merits bu, is made special Z" hen or charge on the
lands" assessed as benefited, under the particular
statute relating to the City OF New York. (ls6, 22S
And read that statute. the assessment 10 not only
another charge ON the particular lands Ia point no,
disputed) but entitled to preference before all
other membranes uoon the same, and may be sued
for and recovered, with costs, IL like manner as II
the said houses and lots In the language Of the act
were mortgsecd 10 the Mayor, Aldermen, and Com.
monalty, for The payment thereof"
The act referred to was passed on the 9th April
1913, and was, its title purportea, IAN act 10 re-
duee several laws relating particularly to the City
Of New-NOrk into one sct' 1t was intended phi
maTiy TO remedy the evil Of being obliged 10 resort