The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-31
Supreme Court-GcneraI Term.
Before Hon. Judges Edwards, P. J.,) Mitchell, an
Roosevelt

Before Hon Judges Edwards, P. J.,) Mitchell, and
Roosevelt
THE MILLION AND A HALF TRUST FUND CASE.
WGlidm Curtis and Others U.s. Docid Leartt, Receiver
and Darid Ledvtd Receiver, U.s. x N Btatcford -Argu-
mont The court took the papers, and decision is
served.
Before Hon. Judges Mitchell, P. J,) Roosevelt, and
In the Natter Of the Appiicatson of the Mayor, &c. to
Open Fourth apenueThe Court gave elab opin-
ion affirming the decision At Special Term in favor Of the
property had appealed Judge Cleke dssented from the
opinion Of the majority Of the Court.
mens was entered In the Court Of Common Plea in
suit wherein Sampson McGown plaintiff, and Leaven
worth Danfor,h, Waterson Latsen, Defendants that
the plaintiff convey by Deeds to be dated Novembe
lS4s TO the respectively their assigns the
lands described in the Judgment. The Judgment was
divided into several sections describing aud conveying
the lands. McGown and wife by deed acknow,
lodged February 49, 1852 but in pursuance of the udg
ment dated November Is, 1s4S-yet in part of 1t
referring to the judgment-conveyed to Bsyard
Clark in fee, for the consideration of 1889 SO,
certain lands, with full covenants Of warranty,
land should be conveyed by such warranty deed
to the membranes Of tho mortgages executed By
AcGown to the Commissioners for loaning certain
neys. The deed contained such exception =
Bayard Clark in October 1852, conveyed most Of the
lands in the block between Third and Fourth avenues
100 and lO1st streets, to Mr.. Houghton In the
general plan of the city adopted by the Commissioners
under the act Of 1907 Fourth laid only
100 feet wide and the distance between the Third and
Fourth 900 feet By the act Of April 1887 1t
declared that all that pert Of the Fourth be-
tween Thirty street and the Harlem river should
be widened the plan map Of the city by adding
20 feet Of land each side The Commissioners of Est
mate and Assessment to have given to Mr. Howton only
nominal compensation for the part of the taken
from hm-20 feet, so by 200-whe they have allowed
about 81 200 to the Of the corresponding portion
the block next north, who probably had done act
to dedicate his lands The correctness of their decisions
turns on the true construction of the deed to Clark.
That deed makes reference to the Judgment and 1t
does not strictly conform to the judgment. = .
1t would be mprovident rule to allow Judgment to
the purchaser from him. when the reference made
the Deed to the judgment 1t contended that
the Fourth intended in this deed the Fourth
avenue as it before the addition There is nothing
the face Of the deed to show such intention. The in
ference always that the street directed to
be opened when the decd executed the in
tended and referred to in the deed There in S4S
and 81 at the periods Of the date and execution Of the
deed, but Fourth avenue that not yet opened
and to be when opened lao and not 100 feet wde
Counsel for Mr. Adriance objects that the report OF the
Commissioners Is not valid because Is signed by two
only and insists that the constitution Of 1851 requires
q concurrence of the three commissioners 1855 The
decision concludes In this much Of the report
is above designated and the other ubnitted
the Court much OF these last either party
ay 10 be material should be inserted among the
appeal papers and form part Of the judgment to be
tered ii either party wishes to carry the farther
The report should be affirmed with costs