The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-06-25


the right Of way the bridge
There covenant In the usual FORM not TO assign or
subet the premises without the assent OF the corpora
An assent was given by the Comptroller, behalf Of
tioning the assignment by Allen TO Conklin. The duty
and power to give such assent is conferred by the or
refused bis sonssn. to the BY OosIn to the
Conmis,ioners Of Emigration made By him ON the 9th
It insisted that the want Of such assent renders that
assignment wholly void 1t replied that eonssstisg
assign ment the covenant discharged Dampsrs
case a Coke 49, Smiths leading 49,. Brummel
al Wendell 44i), have been eissd. whether as the
tween conditions and covenants in this particular need
not consider am Of opinion that 10 for the corpora
ton alone to tas ~ ans . Ss ean 40 80
And one among several reasons 10 tnat me o.
rent after the br ach would prevent tSru re, !SSea
Wit OF the Commissioners that they have paid rent since
concude th;s branch OF the case with the folio wing
propositions, which appear to me to be established by
the pre- ceding revsw Of the statutes and documents
That the plaintiff and other owners OF the lots pur
1915 have right by virtue Of the covenants
owners Of such lots to interfere with any which the
corporation may make permit Of the premises con-
tanned In the lease to Allen. and in question In TINS
D. That the corporation Of the city OF Me- York are
entitled to the building called Castle Garden and the
the United States 1885, and entitled to- and hod
the fee Of the soil under such building and BRIDGE BY
s. That the United states did not acquire the fee of
these premises by the esson from the State ia 1903 but
fee subject to right tho United States passed to
the corporation the act of 1927 that the act Of Con-
gushed this right Of the United States and enursd to
the benefit OF the corporation grantee Of the stae
act Of 1891 and according to the conditions and upon
the terms pre- cribsd BY such act.
NJ II, That apart .S the question q no G1s
any whstever which the Corporation may think pro-
per to make OF these premises that In the po
sition Of this plaintiff may indeed unite In complaint,
REALTORS with the Attorney General to prevent
perversion Of the property but the people through
refer any other than that Of the Broadway Railroad
III Legal Observer, $500, to support this proposition
the for which the and was seto Sed ware all
Of public misunderstanding all the inhabitants Of the
s. That The want of the assent Of the Comptroller to
the assignment by Conklin, legally necessary and not
dispensed with BY reception Of rent an obec ton only
to be taken advantage Of BY the corporation itself
H. proceed to the consideration OF the second bransh
of the cause.
1st There can be NO question that II the occupation
Of Castle Garden an emigrant depot would amount
to nuisance neither the Corporation Of New York nor
INJUNCTION Would then be granted In addition to the
cases cited refer TO the Attorney General vs. john
,tScs e Wilson's Rep o. sssr1s S and e the
self to the title to the soil between high and low
viii n Be nuisance to the Crowns Subjects the Gro 1n
has not sueh right i could not transfer Il e the city
3D. But few points ars better settled than ths:-rhat
less Ii. thing sought to b prohibited Is In itself
nuisance and repara BILE mischief will unless the
thing to be eDoined is not noxious of ITSELF but
thing which may according to crcumstances prove to
has been tried At law But il the magnitude Of the In
jury to be dreaded is great and the risk immnens
that no prudent man could think Of incurng y the
there possibility that the anticipated injury from
the noxious erection may mot happen:
81 ~ Rs
Granit. Bridge COMPANY, al Pick. s441 vaughan y.
Law, Il Humphrey, l2s Krkman Vi. Houck, N
esnai ooSp.ny fs.sr. o. White ": coSsn
amlnsd in The Attorney General The Sheffield Gas
Company, e De Gex McEaughtan and Gordon, 316.
While general rule is thus stated viii be noticed
that in very many of the authorities the effect Of tae
intended erection was an expected injury to property
The whih relate to expected injury to health
as more applicable to the present question.
The principal OF such the Anon,
%sas Fishing v so ,hs
Dunlap, IT'S, Mclean Robinson's Parl. Rep, l,ols)
torney General vs.. Csaver, is yessy, I'll Attorney
General and others vs.. Blount, a Hawks, 3sa.l
ing houses Now such an erection Is indictable az
nuisance at common Ia ~ (Rex vs. Cross 2Carr Payne
4S3 and see Rex va Watts Ibid 1867 The Scottish
cases Catlin vs. Valentine and several others in our
courts are open to the comment that prmG ia lie the
trade or building In be inhibited VAS ind stable az
nuissrce and the court would not permit an experiment
to be made 10 ASCERTAIN whether untrie though appa
rently efficient means, might not remove or diminish
The scottish case &c sinton va Pedie deserves par
t;cnIer rotca Tho hill Of susnanson and nterdct wa.
t"uast;u 10 .e.t;or ~ rsn~s IF shamhiss ami
sis rnhtar homses yhtch n Us siieued vona nrove
20 the nronerv NJ tina nartisa and would mi
1.a Lii hs.a r-Stch rosasd fbs neohhorhood Tha
;ed;ct ranted hv The Tord Ordinarv tn whom Il WAS
s.sntad ss ah:omte. rastranino tha srscton of Tho
R;IS;n. ali = the Intandad nss ~ than sa shsm
bas Th,s v"s 81 MR. On HEARING ha recalled the
ntsrd;ct A Car nrohibitad tina at tae bui