New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-17
TIE COURTS.
THE RIGHTS OF LEssEEs.

now TIE TITLE TO BUILDINGS ON ANOTHERS
GROUND MAY BE FORFEITED.
The case of Louis Miller agt. VIM. b. Earle
and Richard B. Connolly Controller, was reported ABOUT
two months ago when il first came up in the Superior
Court The plaintiff is the owner OF threestory tehe
menthOuse at the Of Eighhave. and Fiitynnth
st.. and two other frame buildings, one fronting on
Fity-nnth-s and in the rear of 1.-THE three being
valued at $40 500 prior the taking of them by the city
for public park On the application OF the Commits
sioners Of Central Park relative to tie widening OF
Broadway between Tifty-seventh and Ftyninth-sts.,
and the LAYING out Of Ro k az three Is aepsers
were appointed, who estimated the pantnrs properly
9ygrd of Se9l23 10 VIM. b. Earle, the defendant who
owned the plot OF ground on which the Dudlhks WerS
built and which was known as lot No. on tne Daitg1
and Benefit Map. In March, 1863 the pantl presenter
to the Controller the claim upon which TINS action Is
lac made a demand upon the Controller for h5 money,
This refused, and the Controller, as aleEed ~ we
plaintiff was preparing to pay the whole award " Eare
The plaintiff obtained an Injunction restraining the Co
roer from pay ing over TINS amount. ,,.te ,,o,,,i,
answer il is alleged that the pldintiu Occupcu
the premises Of the defendant which the buildings Or
the former stood under lease for term Of 10 Years
from tie 1st of NAV Is5o MIC lea "a provided that Miller
the lessee, should pay the regular annual taxes ana as
srssmcnts which might be imposed according 10 law
Plaintiff neglected to fulfill these conditions. and did not
pay the taxes for the years 1864 1865 1867 ana 1851 By the
Terms OF the lease also plaintiff by his glec; Of the COW
(which declared hathe should remove his buildings
month uronc the expiration or the lcd,t
thereby forfeited bis right TO remove them, and
the buildings became the property OF the defend
ant. Earle Judge Barbour in his opinion, says
IL is quite clear that the plaintiff has no
right Of action against the defendant, Richard b. Con
Molly either as Controller otherwise. Personally he
had interest in the matter, and he has no power TO
represent the Cooperation nm suit To which the later Is
not party. II amy other person besides Eare Il party
to he action il must be the corporation by which the pay
mout made. As 80 the Controller therefore, the
compa must De- dismissed. The plaintiff by me terms
of tie lease. was bound to remove his buildings from the
premises of the defendant, Earle within the month pre-
cediug the termination OF the lease As no time was
fixed for the payment Of the taxes, although painiih
yet paid them, still it cannot be held that he
has forfeited his right to remove his building
At the time OF the confirmation Of tne
report the defendant, being the owner In fee,
OF che land, became The owner In fee OF the buildings
the lessee has failed TO perform the conditions Oh
the lease, the buildings during the last
month Of the term, such Lessor would have remained
their IN absolute fee, d charged of the lossees
right to Tie plaintiff was not the owner OF the
buildings did the lease give him power TO own them
long as they stood upon the lessons ground 1t fol
lows therefore, that award could properly have been
made the lessee for it that he not only not
their owner. but had interest in them The lessor
was entitled 20 the value OF his land with the improve
meuts upon it. Complaint dismissed upon the merits,
with costs.