New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-04-22
THE COURTS.
THE BROADWAY WIDENING.
10 the matter.

IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE COURT OF APP
PEALs-CONFIRMATION OF THE ORDER vACA-
TING THE AWARDS AND ASSESSMENTS.
The Court of Appeals, Judge Peckham deliv-
erng the opinion has rendered the following decision In
the matter of the Broadway Widening, affirming the
action OF the Supreme Court in setting aside te comm
nation of the report Of the Commissioners of Estimate
and Assessment:
In MAY 1862 passed authorizing the widening and straight
ching Of Broadway the City Of Newio between ana
and between Fery,second and FoItyseventhss 1t
me d Rsn nI rea the
city and for pablo use 70 Ie an S a to apply
Court for the appointment three Commissioners 0 hSs
act the proceedings authorized were instituted and the Re
special term Of the Supreme Court on Tie Z'h DAY OF
On the M Of February 1871 law passed authorizing an appeal
BY the city from the order confirming the This S al s n' and IN an
authorized Mayor Aldermen, and COnmonsl 10 move to set e
the Of at Special Term and 81 spa sep s 5e
said proceedings for tie widening and Strengthening OF B9d"ay
9 1 . O ste hs awards Tor damage any
unfair or Sq persons aaed hereby the Court sa
Of (which sa then be void and refer die matter back to
moon upon notice behalf of the city to set aside
'Ff the suS% Court vacated he order Of cODsoH
PS, nsc ceasTa Tm the f bepsasn aISci
c :, ,.p, Sr TslT h., N no,., ..,
ASIDE ths Order Of confirmation the order itself by force of the
statute 1873 vested the title to the premises required IN said matter in
Sccons that appeal Would lie from that order Of
eon6rmaton and hGs the nights AID liabilities OF hs
change the said Of the Legislature passed IN V1l
The ument appellant based entirely
the position the had no legal remedy relief from that order
bad then ,eaIce denied that the Court had
The have agreed upon the question whether TINS order
MA SS s disposition Of this case Gar nat tho
supreme Court sPeaa Term IN confirming ns report Of tue q,
and u n T. why, then could D.. Court upon
oop sci aside thai confirmation for urty
fraud could Judge bo whom the order made,
grant rehearng before hie 'aat u any other easel
proper required Of the filing Of the abstract Of
report aud tie time when the report wou be presented oI
rmaton had been eIire! omitted and The oo1r nsa @
he deprived property order without relief Sup
awarded Of large and thus Inadvertently had
confmeiis there relief Suppose there we're gross con-
corruption between the ZONE OF the parties
interested aud the acting officers OF the city, the great injury OF the
snd the report confirmed there 10
relief Of fraud mistake. irreguanty. appeal
afford relief the defect might not and probably would
| appear the TO the appeal 49,
prohibiting the making Of motion for relief in
examined TO show the GROUND for iet
conceded Of the Court to hear such motions In ordinary
orders suits there pending and no reason per-
Court does possess and should not exercise the like
power in cases of this character
provision that the report when confirmed shall be
final and hes reference to an appel Iason not to the
provision aiming regular confirmation OF report free
rau mistake plainly intended to sveaei
interest mistake an egqar fraud whereby important rights
property acquired lost 1t had reference simply to an appeal
the and satisfied with that All judgments liable to
be aside for fraud mistake, egula and vested interest
therein $ subject that liability.
Whether Legislature hal this act for the Of
vscang confirmation do discuss do
authority this TO interfere with that order
There yanou and appropriate provisions this statute Of lS7
point made here @ to the Snency OF the grounds for the action
The Court setting this ASIDE VI had the power There
gulahy and maud enough 70 justify the action Of the Curt upon
ground and nsc the Of either
The order appealed from should be affirmed with costa