The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-01
Supreme Court Especial Term.
Before Judge Roosevelt.

Supreme Court Especial Term.
Before Judge Roosevelt
QUESTION OF ASSESSMENTS UNDER THB LAW FOR
PAVING AND REGULATING sraRKrs.
ynn tho 1Gs ~ IM may9, .si %, S
be SUSTAINED, IL mutt be In violation OF fund amsnth
rule that he who asks equity shall do equity The plain
district Of the sity-ons at the of sixth
and Forty ninth street and the other ct the
Of Tenth avenue and Eighasth street. and AL full
lots For reg ulApg Forty ninth street, hundred fest
assessed slos 81 aod for regulating Tenth avsaus tas
the aggregate Slss &c. The plaintiff does not deny thu
the work DONE and well done does he aeye that
It cost less or was less beneficial to him. than the sums
sssesssd; and yet, on mere tsshnca ground without
Offering 10 pay anything, he asks this court 10 the ex
ereiss OF Its equity jurisdiction grant him perpetual
Injunction against the collection Of the entire asse
nens thus, Ia ect securing the whole benefit Of the
work to him, and impo ing It's who'll cost upon others
This certainty ia novel equity And the grounds
On which II rests 1t to equally novel By the
STATE law, relating particularly to the city Of New York.
the business Of pitching paving grading and ewsrins
than forty years BEEN to the corporation They
authorized, also, without the cventon Of tn
any other court to cause estimates to be made Of tho
eIpsnfe OF its proper assessment among the
bsnefted in portion nearly possible 10 the I'd
vantage recevsd and for that purpose to appoint such
skful and psent dsn erested they might
think proper to make such estimates and
All this In the present case 1t IL admitted done.
IN
OF - since developed the Le.
gislaturs in 1910 declared that assessment In suy
lued by the assessors Of the ward Now these ward
luaons 1t the periods In queton the public legsls
many to the extent OF hirds under the a-ua
selling prices Of ths day These very lotsfarnish Illus
tration In ls50-so the complaint admits and er.n Al
lesssthe Sixth avenue lot and that . full coraer lot
higher up than Forty ninth street, valued by tina
ward officers ~ $500 and the two Tenth lots OF
fall size and one Of them on the corner OF Eghtisth
OStrA
st stronger possible, be found In tbs Of the
Second avenue, where worthless or nearly worthless
swamp lots by the Improvement raised in value TO
nora than $500 each, and their previous worth ess
Was under this LRct urged as reason why they
y speaking, only halle nothng-.hus flor that Ia
tbs substance OF the operation building houses certain
favored lots and paying for them BY taxation
others make hete observations not with tbs view Of ia
dcisly defeating The act unless far it may conflict
with the Constitution but ,r the purpose rst Of caog
the attention Of the Legislature to It's op ration
snd secondly In order to apply the vel established rule
that, being statute in derogatioD las the result has
shown Of co nmon right Its provisions wherever doubt
fui are 10 Be construed strictly In this visw then of
the act the qnestion Is, how its privileges to be
avAed OFF Must the parties in whose favor they
created set them up by way OF dsfencs proper
time or must the officers charged with the duty OF ap
portionment OF their Accord, 60 Ia search Of the
evidence and take notice Of the fact of the vsua
toos, st Il cir perils Catty saysand the position IL
ainso by good and inn authorities
matters OF exception, rhsn contained 10 subsequsnt
clause" OF the same statute, and tofiai when in
subsequent iot stAtuts matters OF dsfsnoe
which devokes upon the party to SHOW IL he would
claim an exemption, even - against penalty Cnitty,
328 Now the Bureau of Assessments 10 called Ia
this city, charged with the duty Of appo tionns the
cost Of paving, regulating 81, exercises quasi judi
eal power nd on this SGT is OF court OF sps
cai jurisdiction Its members lie ether judicial Off.
GERS are worn to make "ths ssd estimate aud assess
Ient fairly and impartay, ssoordog to the beat of
trcisipg their beat jaigmeos they "deemsd as the
aos expresses it, and so certihst to the Com mon
Council trAt tn, plaintiff, NJ, rhsrlns BY ths wors
which had bsen dore was TO the sxtent Of the
sums specified he made NO objection to the Bureau
and none 10 the Bcardnone st least pretsnded-bus
on ths contrary he quietly permitted The donss o. the
though he khew-for the law idiormsd him-that
when so ratified they would be binding and usitsn
upon him, IS we'll ~ ali other He offers
cuse Tor the omission and makes suggestion OF fraud
accident or mistake ground Of equitable relief Ths
Common Council he admits, had jurisdiction; but they
court T. rei'w that Judgment cosisraly and in favor
too, Of parry who, although notidsd omitted to make
o. ,non
in its compo,iionf Aud what the err,r complained
OIL sh.t me oSrporA its Officers ass .sssd him too
assesscd him had they the low Valuations Of
ward officers Has he appiisd to the Comm Council to
the He dees not pretend that has
bat directly this court by way Of appeal TO
correct the alleged error it be one, but In the form Of
An dspenosnt collateral sut to annul the entire adg
nspt seems 70 ms too clear for argument that the
Judgment o. the Common Council teas the law express
ly declares II shall be- conclusive for any purpose
" must Dc 90 On Inc u
show much," ana especially a. kgxiast . party Who
when notified to present his objections IL Re hal any
presented none put allowed Judgment to psss against
him BY default To ties: the piiucips OF she pleiors
case, suppose an action In Jus.ces court In which
the defend ant therein might have pleaded part payue
usury, the statute Of hnitstious but did not APP
psrr-voud he judgment against him, although for the
whole amount he en BY this grounds such
~ those susgestsd in tais complAnt Ane not whers
Is the dileesce Of principle bs.aesD the ossss rns
common law eares that no man shall be sued for
debt after he has paid t. and the statutes equally declare
that no action shall At any time be brought usrrious
dernad end ncre on valid demand, aoless within six
years. and yet the Jussc 20 judgment in shk would
neTethelesa be conclusive" as the status declares
the judgntn. Of the Common Couucil shall be In tois
The BUSINESS Of the Supreme Court 10 this district o. the
State, dts proper and necessary 6as.nes) already
sufficiently whslming without oroaching upon the
functions which the Legislature has very Justly conadeA
to special tribunals o, limited jarih!c'icn sni
vhtn o. those tribunal in matter over which 1t
oonfessedy had jurisdi, ton hsa rendsred jldsnsnt
shch the Legislature has declared shall b. biadng
and conclusive" not disposed lightly to trsat such
Judgment Is nullity, especially when the only effect
win be to enable person TO hare his property I'm
proved at the expense o. his neighbor..
Complaint dismissed with costs and preliminary in.
juno lion dissolved.