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

SUPREME ooURr-aENERAL TERN.
Before Chief Justice Mitchell and Justices Roosevelt and
MAY l5.-DsoaoS.-In the Natter Of the Widening of
Val strea-on the 4th Of June, 1851, resolution Of
Mayor, which directed that Wall street. the norther
side between Rroadway and Nassau street. widened
four feet, except that until June 1890 the building
ana part Of it, on the corner of wan and Nassau
Streets or OF north side of Wall street. should not be re
CURED by the Corporation to be taken down. but that
the same should remain until that at the
Gate oil the resolution In July of the same year pet
ton was presented under the Corporation seal OF the
city to the Supreme Court at special term for the APP
pointmen OF Commissioners OF Estimate ana
AT that time it argued that the exception IN the
resolution void, ami that opinion was 1pressed by
the Judge then presiding No order on that SUBJECT was
entered probably conform to that opinion, the
petition as now hIe and the order entered thereon
omit the exception entirely The order was entered
2Sth July 1861 though dated on the 9Th Of that month
The Commissioners made the necessary aaiiavts and
took the oath Of office on the 18th July and Lat of
August 1851 The showing the property to be taken
was not completed until the l7h september 1851 and
the map oiproperty benefited not until the 9th of 0co
Der following. The Commissioners then made a report
and for examination on the 10th of December
1851 and they dsregarding the exception contained in
the corner of Wall and Nassau streets IL 1t i'm
medatcly TO be taken, and the building removed, and
awarded to The owner Of the fee for taking the land AMI
taking down the building the part of the lot to
ken and for loss OF rent of that part from the LIST Of May
1882 Sss2e and awarded to tue essees for their nu
ries from the LIST OF May, 1852 various sums 0bec-
lions were presented to their report and among others
by the Bank Of the Republic, the commissioners, las
their report showsD having allowed the bank the value
OF the Land taken from only and the value the
building upon it, The Commissioners in this con
tary to their own judgment but under the advice of
corporation counsel. The bank contracted to pur-
chase this lot Of ground with the buildings then on
II IN January 81 1851 for 000 and made tine
layment ON the I'D of February following. the st
Il May they obtained possession OF the lot, and began
pull down the old building; the 14th of the same
month they contract in writing with j. L. Taylor
TO do the carpenters work OF their building, AMI to
complete it by he 1st OF November 1871. The brown
stone masons TO complete their work By the t OF
'ctober 1851 The ordinary mason made his contract
May TO- and 10 complete his work by The 18th of
On of he bu had
been erected as far the first principal story above
story on the hof November up to the attic or 9TH
story The cost of taking down this part and making
eleven and twenty thousand doars. But this cost
the Commissioners make allowance. As the map of
the property to be taken not made until the It'll of
September, the commissioners could have BEGUN to
estimate the damages to the respective before
that time The map was essential to show them how |
would affect the rest of his property The Commits
could hardly view the lands to be taken until survey
under which they proceeded they required "ater
having viewed the premises" and after causing sur.
equitable estimate and assessment (Sec I78 D. 4lo By
The 2Sth of July, when the order appointing the Com
mssioners 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
erected to the top of the third story. Yet ]. in.
sisted that for all this value not placed on the
p P in opposition to law the baok was entitled
the matter of opesiog Booningdale square, when no
cummings erected, IL cOntended that the
property was condemned to the of the public Of
the year 1907 when the act ION laying out the city
passed, or as of the 7csr 1871 at the latest when
the map laying out the plan Oh the city filed and
made public; and that he of the square
70 have only the value of hc lana it at Of
tnese years, with interest and not to have the ben
eft Of any subsequent ncrense its value The
Court at general Term, (surcs 1882 said that the
present value Of the land ss TO be allowed to all the
owners, as OF the d15 for all, and that day to
DC about the time of the veton OF thereport And
as there had been great apparent enhancement Of
prices within a few yesrsy before that date the
curt said that the Comm lssioners not to take
could have been obtained At my time within years
'elofe the last year, unless iey considered their en-
Il the land that the owner WAS limited to, enti-
ieo to The value in 1871 with ompound interest on it
rule but was to have the eni anced value which his
oferty mad derived from the rnanen plan ana set
,enea OF the city; ana that thi enhanced value was
@ e com the ow M 10. he JOSS 1894
nd the case 81 Frmar street 7N vend 60 $50, 6so)
as referred TO- where the Coaanssi mess haa actes on
III principle and their report was al opted
nc principle adopted in this ina neither the
iuo OF property when the law CO nc enning 1t to the
lblio use passed took eflsci when the and
As spet tally oxisred to be taAan .uor shen the Cen
is soD to estimate its value we az PAINTED, was to
'lo ru'e OF estimating damages out the permanent
ioa~ about the time NJ the eonph ton Nj Tue report
referred 10 shows that this last pri0N or oas
it, is Ae correct TOR II DIRECTS he Commi,
ug ere after having received tho land ten ra nts, and
semses and 'iter sausing all Surveys, maps prohies
nnps and other things they may Jud noees sary to-
,e made hen proceed and make ju anaeq uitablh
estimate and assessment OF the loss and over
~.
Dvncr and interested in the lands tenensents and
premises BY or consequence OF the opening, &c Ehey
thew arc when they view them, and to have surveys
mans and plans made of them at the same time thtis
also for the purpose of exhibiting them as they are and
moi az they were at any former time and then, afes OBJ
tanning these helps which furnish the means OF deter
mining the value of the lands at the time when they
are te be estimated and not at any prior time the,
with those lights and thoss only so
msts inst and equitable estimate of the loss and
damages the respective owners There Is no provision.
for the Comm ssioners determining the value as
prior date when the resolution to lake the hna sss
psssed or when the Commissioners were appointed ADJ
il the value at either Of those periods was sa ar
innate OF the Commissioner would not pc lus ha
eauits BILE assessment OF the loss and dam u tns
case the bank did tear down costly building ~a r
was on their lot and this was not done untn s'.er
the lat of May. If they had delayed TINS WORK Oh oe
strucon until after the resolution 70 WIDEN ~ oreee
had psssed or after the commissioners were APP
PAINTED and the commissioners began their estimates
month the destruction was completed aoes any one
suppose that the commissioners ought to nave allowed
the bank for the value Of that part of the old building
which had covered these premisesf Or II storm or
hre destroyed the old building at the time suppa~
would the commissioners then have been bound toal
low its values If they were not TO adopt yaiae
prior TO the time of the estimate when would favor the
owner they should not adopt 1t when IL would njurc
hin The cases of Jackson vs. the aayor Of Brooklyn
and OF Siman ond Hicks against the same, decided in
the Court for the Correction of Errors in December,
1S43 and affirming the decision IN the matter OIL Fur
man street az wend have been referred to, to show
that the bank had no right to build after the order ap
pointing commissioner or after the resolution OF the
Common Council to widen the street rs not argued
that precisely similar point was decided, but that
the principle involving that point was decided. Both
Of these cases arise ander an express statute rent
ing to Brooklyn and the points decided in the supreme
Court First, That the passed in 1916, 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 to be per
naneny laid out and TO cause the map TO be kept BY
CLERK of the village subject TO the inspection OF
nhabitant in order that resden; m ght plead gno
OF the permanent plan to be adopted for opening
aging and regulating tbs streets OF the said village
Laws 1915 D. q5 S17 clearly intended to prohibit from
he time the map should be made and filed, any owner
rom building the site Of any street to be laid out on
he ma n except the risk Of not being paid Tor such
building; second, that such prohibition was consttu
tons and that it did indirectly provide full and AIDE
quate compensation to the for the limited proh
biton bus in the increased value given to the ad
joining lands by the conversion Of country farms into
Iarts Of well and permanently regulated village lots
hccane xalnahe city lots Without such nerma