New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-03-14
rr,p pURCfsAsE OF THE FOET
GANgEyOOET PROPERTY.
,,so,;o, from, the Comptroller.

TK5R I,CTR(BASE OF 1tE FOhA
GANsEyOOET PROPERTY
r.,nu,rnien,ion from she Corptronsr.
a. 1etng Of the Board Of Aldermen, held March ~ tne
nSv1g communication was received from the OonP0A''
ia, STA communication be entered at le0s IN
he utes and bished in oil the papers employee ~ me
Corporation, and in the Sunday Times ,1rYT.E Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF TISlycE, CoNPTRSILyg.s oIT Jg5
n n. R,noyoth ne Board Of HIieeclI
GKNylRxES: IN reply to the resolution OF your pa e
Body, calling r information regarding the % T
and the rsons why tie directions Of the Con mon
Sane relative to such matter have notbeen eohphea "n'
nave Tie hOhOf 70 REPORT:
rba. IN the abortion Of the resolution authorizing the pur
,h,sc f such promises Il ted tht great doubt er
Ssed a. 70 The party whom the title thereto was vested IN
order to exhibit 20 the Common Ccrnch me oi ..
~ which experienced in the matter took occasion 20 sac
= them the questions which 10 ny b niue t
trarsacon and which would ogan beg leave 10 IeeI'
ere BSsId S 4 Pyn yI b:e n.y. nPde by ~ Ty with
demand of the consideration view Of the facts stated by me
b such communication, did not feel Justlhed IN competing
- NJ Taylor accordingly applied to the supreme Court FOR
Ssne Il the 6ond. s directed BY the resolution. "a.
The Supreme Court Las sustained bis eIphcaon ooh 81
Eving been given at General Term.
On the decision Of the appeal at General Term applied 70
Charter bs advice to further Proceedings In view
NE i~posnee Of the case I Def1 HnS9 W ETat
A. counsel IN The consideration Of the case
annex the opinions Of the Counsel to the Coooton md
MI Fyar,s which received by December 81 1862
Pending the cansderaon of these opinions by proceed
feopo Of the STATE Ire title Of o ALLEGED
owners Of The property in question ana eonenP'ns ,He
Is completion Of ne purchase, =, -. -, -.
Corporation refer the whole question 20 The
Honorable William F. Allen, late Judge Of the Supreme Court
In my eomnunicaton 10 Judge Allen give detaled state
nent Of the p,eceeags isksn ey ne ~ we .l 70 Mhf
The OPoion Of Judge Allen received by Feb 90
have taken action in the matter since the receipt Of
Judge Aliens 'TnIq4r EfRsSiTFBB h issS Controller
CRY op NEwycRK, LAW DEPARTMENT., OFFICE oP}
CouSsrI THg CORPORATION, Dec. 30, 1863. 5
Hen NJ r. BRENNAN, Controller, &c.-D6ar Sir: As
s yOS sS on fw az yoa hlre desired my cnSS and
which owing their gravity, have retained for mature de
az these tie and important is the Of The Peo
pie, rel Jones Taylor sgains yourself IN Pursuance
Of my suggestion 10 you time ago which met with your
concurrence rubued the with all the points Of the va
Enclosed furnish you hs opinions You are aware int the
Supreme Court at Special Term and sterwlrd at General
Tie TesoSton Of the Common Council relative to the purchase
Of the Fort GeeyoOrt property Mr. EvaIs in the inel0.ed
Judgment Supreme Court woud not be reversed sp
peal In supplemented opinion he also declares that you
would be personally liable fo all costs which might be awarded
appeal nasnuch you would be In the altitude OF ON
Officer Of Corporation refusing to obey Its dIeeions ~
Mr. Evsr en- the whole subject and IN view OF personal
o y tie @ mot fass Sp 70 ssS cSn a
Nevertheless should think your duty to proceed fur
who can each Justify double the amount involved and
iSe matter takes This eoge can only FAY T w PsIes no
protect o F2% 9 cS@ CORPORATION
COPY OF Mr.. EyARTs's OPINION.
have carefully examined the record in the case Of The
e6 ie &C. s S bs O%n Of ednn, I s sa
ss and iII tie r ana the SPIn s Oh se sS
siaers,ion to the question sgbnitted 70 me, VIZ:
Whche the prospect Of reversal Of vi; Judgment upon
There would to be Pct points to be determined oE
J. Is the contract for the purchare by the Corporation the
zeal estate from tie valid in Law" and capable Of en-
H. lie the preceding by andsmus appropriate proceed
ka for its en0rcementl
II both Of The questions be answered in The affirmative no
pected upon appeal If either Of these questions be other
wite determined appeal would promise reversal Of the
doub, the competency Of the Corporation TO pgI
peeness and validity Of the contract set forth an the record to
its Of course Material that, taking the deed rendered by
the vendor performance his part the vendee should nc
sI Ssa dose Sc Se Contract mentions
Beyond @ perceive That any INJURY s
ofse BY the delivery Of deed yesng e In the Corpora
10 any view that can be taken objections raised to the
e tendeed by the vendor cannot perceive that they cast
ouire by tie delivery OF the deed rendered.
The ouy defects sed relate 70 adverse night to the
mere statement Of objections shows the removal Of every
upon the delivery Of the deed by the vendor
end its acceptance by abe venaee. . 1850,
tile IN dpate between two claimants may certainly DO
subject Of sale and purchase from one TO the othe
well where such dispute exi's follows Then a'
Che Ielaors have tight 70 enforce as conisct against 'ne
Corporation by appropriate action o. proceeding -
II this be It the duty OF the minis eral 9ihceIs OF ne
Corporation to perform ell acts necessary and proper to the
ful6iment its part If the contract can be
enforced by action it is violation OF oicihl DUTY on hen
th"n the Judgment OF the Court hes rightly ettled the
obligations Of the Corporation TO eh the contract ana he
power Of the REALTORS compel it, fulment by action
Ire duty Of the ministerial officers Of the CorporatoH to do all
cs imposed them Its agents In performance OF the con-
i esuno be doubted that the Judgment ofthe supreme
Court determined and, IN my opinion, correctly NO
reversal Of be Judgment On this principal point can be ex
peetea FROM an appeal. . .,..,
have sti 70 consider however the question whether,
oush the right Of the REALTORS complete, the particular
reIDedy Of madanus open TO them Tor ts enforcement
Upon this peint also, find difficulty IN supporting the
Judgment the SnpTeme Court upon principle and upon the
authorities cited in the argument and assumed Ia the opinion
~ NJ. Cont A seems imposbe 10 contend that the REALTORS
this right not resisted BY the Corporation need 20
enforce II by action ssain the Corporation, because tie
Corporation ofcers refuse TO perform their duty 70 IL in
discharge Of its duty 10 the reor Undoubtedly the REALTORS
might action against the CoTporaon md the
hitter be driven 10 mSndemus against Its officers TO
The law does rot compel such ccuy OF oeedi and tLot
she judgment OF the Supreme Court on this point anno be
expected to be reveTie cd on appeal. NA. M. ENAkTS
HewYoTk, October 9, 1863.
COPY OF liR. EVARTss FURTHER OPINION.
2HAsovEs STREET, Dec. %, 1853
ny DEAR iR: am IN receipt Of your favor Of THIS date in
which have heretofore given the submitted TO
fn the msndamus against te Comptroller in the Hser Of the
Fort Gsnsevoou property have given consideration 10 the
aoeson Of the liability personally for the coat, Of
fpIther opposition 70 the Judgment by appeal
Ills quite true that lay former opinion confined 10 the
merits Of and this incidental point escaped my ateu
ton
though official person. for when judgment zoe, agip
him. there can be no doubt The result Of the controversy