New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-03-14

70 venou Of Nj Draper made the whole TRANSACTION Nho
is so alleged that the bond and m9tsage given oI ft OF
The purchase money not executed IN accordance win the
terms sal,le interest spec.ea ,s ooa do az
er That 10 be question affecting the title The Comproh
sbod not have received other than proper bond and
mortgage and the city could nave at any ne e0npeed per
formSnce of the terms Of sae in this respect.
he substantial ground Of objections Is that presened by
the appearance Of r. Drpr in the transaction, and upon
base ny refusal to comply w@ the resolution
Ier proceedinss were thcreupon instituted behalf Of
he eeed owners Of the property, to compel by mandamus
% y vas e s by The Hon John f Dew
cn Counsel the Corporation Tie decision Of the Special
ncr Corporation possessed the to purchase and for
market that represented in its corporate capacity b
The Common Council that the action Of the Common Council
vady taken that there no legal objection to
the validity ofthe title; that tie ComPiroIer was mere
obey the corporate direction indicated In the resolution
Of the Common Council, and peIemptory mandanps was
ordered accordingly issue commanding me 10 comply with
the directions of the Common Council From this decision
appeal taken TO The Geners Term and after ar
the order tic Special Term far the directs the
Comptroller prepare sign and deliver the bonds therein
mentioned N the manner ana ion hefen cse'S Wa,
mandamu heretofore issued On the rendition Of tbs udF
legal advice further in the matter and big
opinion e the probable Ieu, Of an arPcs to The Court Of
counsel and retained tho Hon. VIM. NJ Evarts as consulting
counsel the question submitted have received ne op
ion Of Nh Eya these questions and the eonouring oPn
ion Of Mir Devein.
Mr Eyarts in Ms opinion, discusses two questions:
the contract for the purchase ~ the ooIporsSn OF to
real estate from the REALTORS valid IN law and capable Of en-
forcement by Judicial proceedings and ~
q is the proceeding BY mandnmus appropriate proceed
lie snswers both Of questions in the Affirmative On
tie r point after asserting the competency Of the Corpora
the completeness and validity Of the contract forth in the
record accomplish no object ne remarks; The only De-
c ts ID Ii le ccSpo a He tic
in dispute between two claimants may certainly Dc mace we
existed
Ho also decides that andsmus 10 an sppropliae remedy
the contract by the HihAc-
IA ceY f the Corporation Mr. Evarts concludes that no
rSs,ed In pppiemensi opinion MI Evarts states that
II after judgment Special and General Terms the Comp
upon being made personally responsible the decision
Mr. peyen' in .uhmttng the opinion Of Mr. Evart stse,
with my views not differing from tho'c expressed b
M EvTts on the whole subject and IN view OF your personal
appeal from the deliberate Judgment Of the Supreme Court
have been served with notice by the attorney Of the
claimants Of intended motion ior et,aehmen esen me
for my ote to comply Th the order o. e M
such damages the owners have already sustained VI may
sustain by my delay.
behalf Of the People Of tho State has taken proceedings 10 pre-
vent the consummetion Of the proposed purchase.
Under oil these circumstances feel embarrassed a. 10 the
have concluded to ask your careful and deliberate sIsns
ton Of the whole and opinion 70 the probable re-
suit Of appeal from the judgment Of the Supreme CouIto
the Court Of Appeals
member Of tie Court Of Appeals, and your aclnowledged
standing urs suggest your fitness as my adviser in the
peculiar ciIcuInstaEee VI the case.
If am advised by you Tia. an appeal TO the Court Of AP
cess hsl feel justified in taking appeal regardless Of any
question Of personal refponsibtlity o., 49,
obtain from him the record ohe legal proceedings bad IN tho
win feel obliged II you win also consider In your opinion
the hearing Of the scon Of the Attorney General and
The ntet which the State has IN the eonTovy and would
be grshed to have personal interview with you on the
''''''" MATTHEW T. BRENNAN. Comptroller.
COPY OF TIE OPINION OF TIE HON. VA. r. ALLEN.
SUPREME COURT. 49, ~
The People ex rel Jsnes B. Taylor e. al, Mathew T
Brennan, Comptroller &c
have examined with the statement Of the Comptroller
Il. the ted ss in % Ut :.
Of the City Of NewYok in payment for lands ssTeed 20 be
for purpose Of market by the Common Coun
The objections made to the contract Of purchase ard It's PER
l. 10 The regularity and legality depending upon TIE reg
uy Of the proceedings Of the Common Council for the pa
10 the tito Of the rcOrs the lands ioa and proposed
no question raised the power Of tho
Council to ss d ssS 6o IN
ho exercise Of It's governmental functions to establish and
n an not he subject Of review OF control BY
and reasonable II not necessary Incident 10
Of OFT Getty city for tho payment Of pa chase poe
y q bs T4opn ls nsSs cf Of tho
Corporation under the direction Of the Common Council are
1S Ssf barn. s s R Bsb Barney
" Neichsns Exchange saldf C. H. Hoi King '. same
s ax III 81, Ul, e ode. sa direction. Of tie Common uH
in the natter Of any such purchase final and obligatory
mon all e ministerial officers Of the city and 10 be obcyed
by them That purchase tor the purpose ndoatedi, unwe
OF the price srreedto be pid e1rGvagaDt win not ve the
and con.ro Of their discretion by Courts
OeI body But the fitness Of the 5hd. pui go iO
| are not disputed.
The only objection the regularity Of the proceedings foI
s uutchsse is that both brunches Of tho Common Council
acd upon the resolution for the purchase after the veto Of the
Mayor ard adopted the day tJanualy lSo ~ vi
oson Of SEQ n OF the Charter Of 1851. This sesed defect
regarded by the obectcrs "a fatal to the powers or rsde
ton Of the Common Council, and nulying Their seiion
the factwss alleged, doubt II the eject claimed Tor 1t
Ire &C. is directory and no. jurisacona and com
piance With its terms would be a most eni an iesnsity
Council in matter over which they Lave general
Bnt within the provisions Of the act referred to, and under
an exuress exception te pobory cauc ordinances may
acted upon by both bsnehss on the same day by uhA
The presumption would be- in the absence Of proof to the
contrary that the unanimous consent required by law ws
given. When OF unofficial nature presumption
arises In favor Of their due execution. Everything pre-
Eamed be rightly and duly done until tho contray shown
ue s the council fhS only Objection in the Board
of Aldermen sction upon tho resolution on the same day
drawn by the oecor before the final vote that was acted
upon By unanimous consent.
not Therefore Liable to the objection taken to them But
the principal objection to completing tho purchase ha. respect
to he title Of tho vendor. hs os'1s to @ pTocsedns and
properly by tie City In 1882 under which the REALTORS claim
one objection to the title Of the relators res upon alleged
defects and eguarity In the proceedings OF the Commission
Of the Sinking Fund for the sale Of the property That The
power Of sale the Commissioners Of the Sinking Fund
questioned but the claim s that they proceeded in No
Of the ordnance Of the Common Council and act, Of the
Legislature controlling and regulating Their actions and Is
asserted restricting their poweT The title to these lands wa
vested In the City by clap l1 Of the Laws OF lsl ilo'e
The act vcsng The title to them In the City describes them
lands uuder waters the resolution Of The Conmsoners Of
the Sinking Fund for the sale OF the lands 70 be made on
the esSry shore Of tile North River between the Prescribed