New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-07-28
wEST WASHINGTON MARKET CASE.
npcrs,oN or JUDGE TNGRAHy ~

- ofhor
n, Jssoes B. Taylor act. The Mayor, he Of New-Yors
~ B. TalyG5 and osss sr The Mayor
ASIDE JuI <RxRSTs
Mess. So{e, and hSksSn ne On STns ConrOne1 Me.
.awsrds for plaintiffs, Taylor and Brennsn Mr. Evsrts
Pec?le.
ISGRAHAM, 1.-The deien't rants the Mayor, &c., of
The CITY ofNewYork, NOV 10 set aside the Judgements
entered in these cases and all executions and proceed
ipgs thereon, and all pr cee'Ings in the action No.
after the order OF JpAtce Roosevelt of 18th July,
1850 and al spulatr ss tc refer aud subsequent pro-
seedlings III the other. acSns AMI for Other relief.
These motions c'Jpie before me in twofold aspe,t'
The Controller unser the act OF 1888, moves TO set
sds the proGee duIgs upon the allegations OF supposed
.olion 10 90 aiming the assignments, OF thai 'hey we're
The Coun ~ fer the Corporation coins in tho appl-
eaton or saf of the city, and asks 70 haze he pro-
seedings eacaed and set aside no: only for re same
causes O. ed by the Controller but tor yarSsus oner
grounds which wa BE- referred TO by me herein
" N deispn of these motions, therefore 1t may oe
oeSesssry 10: me to examine not only vac supPG;sS
rou4 ida Of coilus;oE and fraud bat the quesons when
ANS as ~ de powers and authority OF the Corporation
CcuDs and his proceedings IA the progress OF these
prior to Judgment
The coprse OF proceeding in the first action was GER
tainy nor that oF ordinary prosecutions Involving
krg amount of property which depended as 10 titie
sY0a an eXanip alton OF ancient documents, ana WHICH
@s clsmed BIZ both the parties 70 the controversy
re- oresnntjne e State and city was not under ore
sary circunss TO be expected thai the Jug Aon
~yoas end without full examination before the eous
A. sG IN
Me- Court Of Appeals and yet at the present u@e IS
the Ease Is COW presented to the Court the defendants
rs corlchr I'd upon all the matters which nave oeen
raised in ols cause, without t1e opportunity VI A0"
or Of a neS trial, as allowed BY law ~
nrops1e to examine first the proceedings oil the
counsel "a resting upon the authority which ne possesses
m renresenng the city, and whether lch proceeunes
and spulations are binding upon the corporation De-
ssye doing So however, will notice some in'''eIs
which have been urged before me as grounds i0r grant
ng THE motion. ;,oa
q. lenotb the proceedings of the Commissioners OF the
Land Office in granting the lease OF the premises orig
ualy 70 lay lor and eonali, the ieseeeS sa1
ingileir motives both account OF the snail amount
s reat 70 be paid and the haste with whlcp the grant
wac made. ;.L
sreh proceedings have nothing TO do on this mouon
whether the Commissioners did did not honestly ana
fai,hfuly discharge their duties is mater between
,hs ana the State. If the price received by them Tor
,be lease WAS inadequate the State and not the courts
Is 10 cali them 10 account. II there was any fraud IN
making the grant, or if the lease was void as prohb
tied by law or for any other such matters may
be grounds of defense III the ACTON, OuI e MOI " NC
exam med in these motions.
officers and matters nothing to the City OF New
York in resisting claims this property, that lease
has BEEN given TO TAYLOR and Brennan by the Com
ni.sioners for a sum far below its value Such
defense would form ground for their claim to the
of the land if they could show no title there
70 better than the State had, and that tale was TO be
examined and ascertained on the trial Of the cause
For this reason, also, do not deem 1t within my
SutV on this motion 10 examine who had the real title
70 this property or whether the State owned it or the
city. Such questions must necessarily be examined
and decided in more formal aud deliberate manner
en could be done on the notion and they have beer
examined and decided when this was tried
That decision shall only he reviewed on appeal II there
for opening the judgments III the otner
grounds upon which this motion IL based
refer in, these remarks 10 the suggestions which
were made before by most Of the counsel as TO the
claims urged on both sldes as to the right OF each 10
held the same.
Il nav become necessary hereafter to inquire as to
the authority of the Commissioners in other respects,
as 70 matters involved in the controversy but of that
will not speak now.
for me 70 add that in the decision Of these motions,
have nothing TO do with the consequences OF loss That
might follow to the city, If the Judgments should De
srtned or the gain if the Judgments are suffered to
stand have no discretion TO exercise, and no consd-
Grafton of policy should influence me in regard to the
final results Of this litigation. Ii the judgments should
be opened and the result be loss to the city OF more
land or greater damages the officers who apply for the
granting Of this motion, cannot doubt are acting as
hey deem best calculated TO promote the city interests
These motions are founded a matter OF right
ii the judgments have been coHusvey obtained, OF If
The proceedings by which those judgments have been
entered mp against the city have been irregular and
without authority the defendants can ask as matter
Of right 10 have them vacated and set ASIDE
II there has been such fraud COLLISION, or rregu-
lrity in the proceedings it s my duty to sustain them,
whether should think the title 10 be defective or not,
or whether in different form in review of the pro-
sedipgs upon the trial the same could be sustained
not The law has provided mode of appeal on these
suestions and in my judgment they should not be e@-
amined in any other. Originally, the Corporation OF
die City and the tenants of the ground sought to be re-
covered were made parties defendant 70 this action
On demurrer by the defendants to TIE complaint the
oomplaint WAS sustained but the Justice In his oplnOn
in,iIaIed that the Corporation was Improperly made
pary and that of action existed against the
CITY Corporation Tor Withholding the premises was
stated 10 the complaint The People eSt. Inc mayor,
Ae.. OF Eew-lork Is Barb. 24Ol
Upon this decision made in December, 1858, an order
was entered requiring all the defendant TO answer.
In February succeeding, on a consent GShed Oy tle
Corporation Counsel and the attorney for the plaintiffs
Tsyloy and Brennan the action against the c'y was
discontinued and an order duly entered. The costs OF
the defendants, the Mayor, &C., were also PAID
On the 9th of February, the counsel informed the
Mayor that such dscontinuance had been entered.
After the entry of this order, the plasts proceeded
IN the canse against the tenants and took Judgment
Against them BY default for the possession OF the
premises and for the recovery OF large amount OF
damages.
IInon the dscontinuance az the Corporation com
,ne TO the knowledge of the Mayor he communicated
70 the Common Council application 70 HIN from the
tenants, asking TO have them protect the tenants IN
their possession and theTeupOn resolution was passed
on the 18th Of February directing the Corporation
Counsel to appear and defend the tenants ID The action
and % take such other measures as would ehectuaiy
protect the interests Of the city IN the sad property,
and the suit affecting the same.
After the massage Of this resolution OF the Common
Council the Corporation Counsel was not substituted
"a attorney for the tenants until the 18th OF May the
day the judgment had been taken agains then oy
default.
In June & motion was noticed TO have the Judgments
sside, the Receiver discharged the possession re-
tored aud the funds in the band of the Receiver PAID
20 the Corporation. On this motion the Corpora