The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-23

The Brick Church Property-suit to Test tn.
Validity OF the Late sale.
SUPREME COURT-sPECIAL TERM.
Before bon. Judge Roosevelt
Dec n -Aykenbmgh and Earle Us Tie Ndgoy, Comp
hsler, Commissioners Of he Sinking Fund, d. This
suit To test validity sale OF the Brick Cnuro,
property
Judge Roosevelt delivered elaborate decision In III
Of which he remarked that this ait brought
test the validity Of the late sale Of the plot OF ground
which the edi6ce commonly known the Brick Ohurc
stands. II 10 instituted, not by the corporation Of th
city, but by individual citizens, behalf Of themselve
and all other taxpAy aDst the Corporation and 10
Commissioners Of the Sinking Fund The plaintiffs .
iege that the consideration to be paid to the city th
sale complained Of far below the real value OF ciy
reserved rights In the premises; and that the
cnposing OF those rights, although NORMALLY by publ
auction, required BY lax, really IN consequenc
the city the church, by private bargain and that
CONTAMINATION OF the rraD cement would be great "a
crhcs Of the pubic property. entaiiDg correspondia
increase Of Individual taxation and ought therefore,
way Of preventive remedy, 70 be perpetuaily
joined, according 70 the prayer Of the complaint.
this complaint the Commissioners OF the stnkiut
Fund and The Corporation OF the city-tne only par
ties named ~ otfendanA-have interposed . de
murrer, the ground among others, toa,, admitting 81
the allegations made In the complaint TO DO true the
paintis hsve right In this acuon the decree which
hey ash for The GROUND in question belonged original,
petuity Al small rent 70 the obce q the oospsa,np
Tor the purposes Of church and churchyard or Gene
terry and subject TO the condition Of forfeiture snould To-
parties u any time apply or convert toe same 70 pr,
yste, secular uses." Und0 such lesse In fee tsv
rights, Il will be teen. were reserved 70 the cisy-ons
right TO re enter for breach Of condition lad the que
uon-one At least OF the questfons-s what the ega
racter oil tnese rights ana who mas Ine Legal
pow u dispose OF them, and In what manner.
The Judge tnen went into analysb Of city ordi
nance Of ls44 and the lease by which this properly
Ufad IA oAA and alA uwals. tknv
or or authority oY ID sale The opinion thus concludes
ts nt1s psk m inlupcs.n against 'tne Mayor, Alder
nep and Commonary,n % vel a. the Commssloners
md yet they In effect In their complaint thai toe
Corpo alton have done nothing wrong themselves, an
IeibDg 10 warrant any wrong OF the INN uissionsrs
WIN tnen, should the Crrpors,son be mplea led and
subjected 70 costs OF m action The Corporation, be
sdes IN the exeicse Of an honest and oo"a e dscre
ton land corrupt motives chargo). nave the e
AL right should the pubic interests in their Judgment
demand 10 dispense for the future with tue dspated
applied for and was suppos ed 70 have been ootainea
And The resolution passeo for that purpose was as has
been aoudged VOID for want Of conformity 10 the mode
ADOPTION with the principles OF toe new charter,
ncther and valid one proper, can no douot be oh
tanned Al all events, Mr. James aud his associates hAv
assign" in the language Of the grant have foil po~er
and authority 70 convert the premises 70 whatever
use, The grant may % And Is 70 me os Ss q
set forth In the complaint, they undertake 70 Civ,
vas - deed In conformity 70 the original grant o.
70 the CONDITION. unless duly released, OF applying
the premises only 70 the use church and onurcnyArd
may be said that Mr. and q his Associate
and that they should epjoned, by way Of preventive
remedy from carrying out their prohibited design But
Mr. James and his associate purchasers are not parties -
the suit and n they were, the grant already sug
,sed provides different and the only remedy for such
CO.. O. and one ss matters nov stand Far benenoa
the tar paye-a retroceson Of the property 70 the
city by operation OF law. I'll shall and may De lawful,
Gays the sran In the event referred 70 for the Mayor
Aldermen a1d Cemmonaty Of the city OF New York and
tneir SUCCESSORS ana assigns into ali and singular the
Aforesaid premises with The appurenahces, 70 re-ene'
their iormsr estaie anything In the grant contained
the contrary tsthsAne ing Neither the officers o. -
church, therefore, the purchasers rom the chu
can be compelled 81 Injunction 70 devcse the premise
public worship. They have Q right by contract 70
they ct (Which they no, hgely 10 doD 70
submit 70 The prescribed orfeure~ forfeiture shch
The Common Council may may not avail themselves,
and which enforced, would according W The siAtenebt
In the complaint be benefit instead Of an injury 70 toe
tsx payers the extent OF four hundred thousand do
lars and upwards" that being the plaintiffs a1ege,
'rhe real value Of the property 70 bs forfeited 10
con ans itself tschn oaliy 10 the statements 10 the com
paint looks beyond to facts presented the former
motion, there no ground for this action, either In ir
present shape or In any other into which hcoud be trans
formed by the usual leave TO amend.
The following "a summary Of the principal points Of
First No ar as the acts Of the Commss ,ners ere con
cerned nher the contract made by IN = for the sale and
release Of ths cys interest IN the premises was sutho
void valid, there ground for interference
II void, there In OCCASION for Interference.
Second. An 10 the trustees Of the church. their interest
estate In Zee although subject 70 rents and condition
WAN IN im nature, well IRON the Of the term
"aWisns' 10 the grant q vendible title Asd the law
gill intend until overt 70 the ontrsry done ih.
the purchasers o. that title contemplate either
continued Of the premises the poses Of pub
nc owpephp,n ~ prescribed IN tbs grant, or regular
dspepsaon IRON the stipulated 70 be obtsu
CO. proper manner, from The Common Council OF the
ty. upon such terms as that body In the cse
discretion reposed In them by the charter mar
deem iust alke their constituents and 70 the pur
chsseIs.
Thrd Or should the purchasers treating such dlspcn
saiion unnecessary. convert the premses Immediately
secular and thereby, # sucn be the true sw
ne consequences ON that a.sump,on being IL enforced
great benefit instead Of injury 20 the tar payers GILL af
ford ground their behalf for complaint, and OF
for injunction 10 anticipate w
FOURTH The Commissioners OF the sinking Fund, n
would SEEM under their general authority 20 dispose OF
all real Of the city not In for public purposee
have no pov er 10 release 10 bind the Corporation
release the condition Of ancient grant requiring toe
grsnees pain OF forfeiture 10 devote forever the
o. enses grsntei to religious and not cuar Such
diversion OF tho property from the purpose originally
corts mplated alone be authorized ratified ~
resolution OF the Common Council duly passed by both
boards and the same year according 70 the present
charter.
Fith No corporator or taxpayer, Individually or on
behalf Of himself and s others for injury TO-
or q interpolation Of The corporate property fran
law on the part Of The fupotopsies entrusted with the
corporate powers and duties.
The complaint dismissed, with costs