The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-17

been made 10 conform to the present plan. In this
the Corporation could have the pro-
the same perod against the will OF the Corporation
the proceeding could be as eaectually stayed By
iority OF those interested expressing their dissent to the
report Thus the character Of 61edness aud permanency
which was given by the statute the flins OF
the map of the streets in the upper part Of the city
and in the Brooklyn cases does not exist streets
in the lower part Of the city until the report is confirmed
The restriction to the Of the site of the streets in
the upper part has the authority Of statute, the
preme law of the land and Is founded on an indirect
compensation. The attempted restriction in the lower
part OF the city has such high authority statute
to support IL it has not resolution Of the Corpo-
ration to prohibit the Of the Site and is founded
no consideration, direct indirect 1t is not surprising
that natural sense OF justice led two of the Commits
soners to revolt at the idea of subjecing
such injustice and that they yielded only account Of
the advice Of the counsel In the or the Corpora
ton Of New York Mapes (6J.C. R., 49, Chancellor
from building lands proposed to be taken by resolu-
tion OF the Corporation on the ground that right
vested until the report Of the Commissioners should be
confirmed and he said, the plaintiffs may, perhaps,
have to pay for the value Of the buildings erecting
by the defendant This is all the inconvenience loss
that the plaintiffs can sustain and would 1t not be dam
mum abs que injurid 1t is loss which the Court
not prevent without dangerous and in
reference with the enjoyment of private right As the
stands the plaintiffs have shown right title
any equity, which be ground for Injunction
by which am authorized to control the defend
ants in the usual and ordinary enjoyment and
|, improvement of property to which it is assumed
they have an absolute title. Qbid, PIP 90 6l,)
that the appointment Of commissioners operated like
notice Of lis per,dens The analogy would not favor the
appellants. IT, in suit to foreclose mortgage, notice
OF he Tendcns be led does not prevent the morgagor
from going to improve his property By erecting bnd
ings is he under any penalty Qke that assumed in
this that il the lands be taken from him BY sale
he shall be allowed nothing for the buildings Nor
does the commencement OF foreclosure converse
e the mortgage when the lands sold If he buys
them 10 pay for improvements which the lands
when the action was commenced but which have since
been burned down otherwise destroyed. The lis pen
dtrs does not prevent parties from exercising rights
which they had before suit brought The Court may In
peculiar circumstances so far anticipate the Judgment
to interrupt those rights but this is BY special order
only 1t seems to be understood that the Corporation
have desire to continue the proceedings, unless the
bank shall be compelled to go without compensation for
the building That makes it unnecessary to inquire
whether the Commissioners proceedings are void
contrary to the resolution Of the Common Council Ii
the Corporation had such DESIRE it might be necessary
to into this last inquiry also then the proceedings
would 60 back to the Commissioners to correct