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

SUPREME coURT-8ENERAL TERN.
Before Chief Justice Mitchell and Justices Roosevelt and


SUPREME COURT-aENERAL TERM.
Before Chief Justice Mitchell and Justices Roosevelt and
MAY 15-DRcuoS. the Natter Of the Widening Of
Wal street-On the Attn Of June 1851 a resolution Of
the Corporation of New York was approved By the
Mayor, which directed that Wall street. the norther
side between Rroadway and Nassau street be wiened
Tour Feet except that until June 1850 the building,
or ana part Of IL, on the of Wall and Nassau
Streets Of north side of Wall street. should not be re-
CURED by the Corporation be taken down but that
the same should remain until that 4 at the
date OF the resolution In July of the year pet
ton was presented under the Corporation seai o. tne
city, TO the Supreme Court at special term Tor the APP
pontment OF Commissioners OF Estimate ana assessment
Az that time it was argued that the exception IA the
resolution void that opinion was expressed by
the Judge then presiding No order on nat SUBJECT was
entered but probably 10 conform to that opinion the
petition as now lille and the order entered thereon
omit the exception entirely The order was entered
2Sth July 1851 though dated on the 9Th OF that month
The Commissioners made the necessary afdavits and
took the Of office on the 18th July and lat of
August 1851 The showing the property to be taken
completed until the l7th ofSepttember 1851
the map oproperty benefited not until the 9th cto-
Der following The Commissioners then made a report
and deposited ID for the 9th of December
1851 and they disregarding the exception in
the resolution OF the Corporation
the corner of Wall and Nassau streets as II II was i'm
mediatcly 10 be taken. and the building removed and
awarded 10 the of the fee for taking ald AMI
taking down the building the part of the lot be
ken and for loss OF rent OF that part from the LIST of May
1852 sgS2p and awarded to tue lessees for their nu
res from the LIST of May, 1851 various sums. Obec-
ons presented 10 their report and among others
by the Bank Of the Republic, the commissioners las
their report shows having allowed the bank the value
OF the Land taken from only and not the value of the
building upon it. The commissioners this con
trary to their own judgment but under the advice of the
corporation counsel The bank contracted to pur-
chase this lot OF ground with the buildings then
1t in January 81, 1851 for SlO co., and made tine first
ayment the I'D of February following On the Ist
f MAY they obtained of the lot and began TO
pull down the old building the 14th of the same
month they made contract in writing with j. L. Tiy or
to do the carpenters work OF their new bung ami to
complete il by he LIST Of November, 1871 The brown
stone masons TO complete their work by the s OF
october. 1851 The ordinary mason made his contract
N Nav andy tn nponlpf nv thA Of
October. On the 2eth of July, 1851 the building had
been erected far the first principal story
the basement the 2lst of August up TO the
story the 18th of November up to the attic or fifth
story. The cost of taking down this part and making
the necessary alterations would probably be between
eleven and twenty thousand dolars But for this
the Commissioners make allowance AS the map Of
the property to be taken not made until the 18th Of
september the commissioners could not have begun to
estimate the damages to the respective owners before
mat time. The map was essential to show them how
much was to be taken from each owner and how il
would affect the rest Of his property The Commissioners
could hardly view the lands to be taken until survey
should show what to be taken and by the article
under which they proceeded they were required after
having viewed the premises and after causing sur.
veys maps, &C. to be made to proceed TO make Joint
equitable estimate and assessment Sec l7S D. 4lo Bv
The 2sth of July, when the order appointing the Com
mifsoners was first entered, the building had been
erected TO the upper part the first story above the
basement, and by the 2lst of August and before the
commissioners could have begun their estimates it was
sisted that for all this value which not placed the
property in opposition to law, the bank entitled to
compensation. A somewhat similar occurred
the matter of opesing Blooningdae square, when no
buildings were erecbsd aud it contended that the
property condemned to the of the public, of
Inc year 1907, when the act ION laying out the city
passed, as of the GEAR 1871, at the latest, when
the map laying out the plan OF the city filed and
made public; and that no owners Of the square were
70 have only the value of e lana it at Of
these years with interest and not to have the ben
ourt a. any suoIe!aent ON S sau ,,+ the
present value of the land ,s 10 be allowed to all the
'wners as OF the same dxG for all and that day to
tipna fh,. r-lprtn M And
s there had been great Apparent enhancement OF
aioe Tics within few years! before that date the
ouIt said that the Comm ssioners were not to take
y vi, ths present value, pr IS far exceeding what
oud have been obtained at my time within ten years
ofe the last year, unless Ii tey considered their en-
aneed prices fair and prob IDLY the permanent value
,ne hnd mat the owner not limited 10, or ehti-
ea 70 the value in 1871, with ompound interest on
rue but was to have the en mhced vaiae whch nus
roery had derived from rnanent plan and set
enent OF the city; and that thi enhanced value was
resumed to compensate the yer for the loss occa-
oned by the rrohibt5oa to build tnce the year 1911;
Id the oi Furmar strees 7N Vend 6i9 55S, 6so)
Is referred TO- where the Cov,Iss ers mad acted on
u principle and their report was ad opted.
ne principle adopted in this - una neither the
iuo OF property when dhe law CO nc enning it to the
blo use passed took eflecL " when the land
IS spe< tally oxisred to be taken .uor phen the Com
To- estimate its valve we ar esnted, was to
Ao. rule OF estimating damages out toe permanent
iu about the time Vi the ca aph ton u the report.
as ct referred to shows that this tst pol or oas
r ere after wing received the land ten ats, and
vemises and fter susing all Surveys ma vs., prohes,
= made - ,hen TO proceed and make usx and go labla.
tim, 10 and Assessment Of the loss and daragt,
nd The benefit and advantage to the respective
wncrs and those interested in the lands ttnen,ents and
PREMISES by or in consequence OF the opening, &c fiey
IRE required 10 view the premises that IS to stehen as
hey arc when they view thcmi ana TO nave sniwyss.
nans and plans made of them At the same tms tht is
so for the purpose OF exhibiting them as they are and
,o as thcy were any former time and them attes OBJ
aiming these heps which furnish the means oil deter
mining the value OF the lands at the time when they
ire to be estimated and at any prior time the
with
far as the statute expressly requires 70 proceed an
make just and equitable estimate OF the Toss. ans
to the respective There IS no provision
for the Comm ssioners determining the value as atan
prior date when the resolution to iake inc ANA sss
or when the Commissioners were appointed Anh
the value al either Of those periods taken tho es
innate OF the Commissioner would not De Just anu
eoutable assessment OF the loss and Gam ages IN Inns
case the bank did tear down costly ouliong ~aaen
was on their lot, and this was not zone untn s,er
the lat of May If they had DELAYED 'ns wo TX o. r ae
had passed. the day after the were APP
pointed and the commissioners began their estimatesa
month after the destruction was competeu uoes any oe
sunpose that the commissioners ought TO nave allowed
the bank for the value Of that part OF the old building
which had covered these premsesf Or II storm or
Are had DESTROYED the old building at the time supposed
would the commissioners then have been oound TO-
low for its values If they not 10 adopt avalae
or 70 The time Of the estimate when it would favor the
owner they should not adopt IT when II would iuJare
him. The cases of jackson vs. the sayor OF brooKyn,
and of Sliman ond Hicks against the same, decided in
the Court for the Correction OF Errors in December,
ls43 and affirming the decision in the matter OF Fur
street, ia emu. nave beeH siV"
that the ba nk had right to build after the order ap
poinnp commissioner or after the resolution of the
Common Council 10 widen the street IL Is not argued
that a precisely similar Point was decided, but that
the principle involving that point was decided. Both
of these arise under express statute reat-
ing Brooklyn and the points decided in the Supreme
Court First That the act passed in 1876 relating
to the then village OF Brooklyn. and which required the
trustees Of the village to plan OF the village to be
made exhibiting the streets, roads and alleys 70 be per
nanenty laid out and the map TO be kept By
he CLERK Of the village subject 10 the inspection OF any
habit ant & in r
ance OF the permanent plan TO be adopted for opening
aying and regulating tbs streets OF the said village
Laws 1910 p Q5 S17 clearly intended 70 prohibit from
he time the map should be made and FLED, any owner
rom building the site Of any street to be laid out on
he ma r. except the risk Of not being paid for such
building; second, that such prohibition was constitu'
tonal and that IL did indirectly provide fun and ade
quate compensation TO the owner for the imiei prom
6iton TO bull in the increased value given to the ad
joining lands, by the conversion Of country farms into