The New York herald., 1872-11-21

20 sne action. that on the 27th OF February. 1871,
and before the expiration OF four calendar months
Legislature passed an act entitled, "An act In re-
lation to the widening and Strengthening OF Broad
ths G 70 s
section Of this act II provided that within four
months from the date OF the order of confirmation
OF the awards, the defendant might at Its option
move before Justice OF the Supreme Court, either
at Chambers or Special Term to vacate the order
o. on she showing OF erro s,afe e
widening and Strengthening Broadway or II IL
should appear to the Court OF Justice that
equitable or oppressive respects the defendant,
or any person affected thereby, ana that .neps taG
and should become null and void, and the matter
should be referred to new Commissioners LOT .
new assessment and award within SIX montns
alter the reference; the new report 70 be pre-.
sented and acted upon after Q certain notice ana
by certain course prescribed In Inc act asc nten
toned and set out in the plea. The plea lurtner
AYERS that by section OF the Act OF February ~,
1871, the procee dings and proofs ON the moton ior
vacatng the former awards were prescribed; tnat
such proceedings have been had, in due comp,,
ance with the requirements and regulations OF
es as so aSa ss Judge %
day Of March 1871 and that oS%.r on the n,
confirmation was by the said Court vacated. an
nulled and set aside, and new reference was
plea concludes the title to the premises is not
vested in the defendant and the right to demand
or receive the amount OF the award declared upon
that IT, the % act OF Of February y, is1 IS unsonstitu
constitution OF the United States In that II impairs
the obligation OF contract, and to the constitution
Of the State in that 1t divess yeseed
due pr ocess Of law. There is loinder IN demurrer
by the defendant. Mr.. George T. Curtis as counsel,
with Mr.. John G. Shaw as attorney, appeared ior
for the plaintiff and Mr.. Richard 0'Gorman and
MIR. A. ]. vanderpoel for the corporation.
ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Mr.. Curtis in his argument on behalf OF the plain
tif, contended that the act OF February p, 1871,
was void, because 1t impaired the obligation OF o
section ten of the constitution OF the United States
He further claimed that under the act OF May II,
the premises became vested In the defendant, by
the first Commissioners report, and the right to
bring an action for the sum awarded to the plain.
was, he contended, the intent Of these acts
80 to execute the constitutional provision,
one 'a hand, the i pubic should become vested
on the ether hand, should have fixed and vested
right to his damages. The report stood confirmed,
wha% any sc p e
annul the whole proceeding BY motion. AT this
time the right OF the plaintif to recover his dam.
ages was q fixed and vested right. This right
thus fixed and vested was, he claimed, embraced
in a contract between the plaintiff aud the city.
| whereby the latter was bound to pay him sum Of
money In consideration of the title 1t had acquired
| to a part OF his leasehod estate. After going
through the various points OF the case Mr..
Curtis observed that it was worthy OF note that the
Court of Appeals manifestly entertained doubt
whether the Legislature had power to pass law
vacating the order OF confirmation. He referred to
the opinion Of Judge Peckham upon this subject.
He maintained that the act of February II, 1871,
was unconstitutional and void in that 1t divestcd
a vested right contrary to the law OF the land,
and took away property without due process OF
law, against the constitution OF the State OF New
York. He therefore submitted that the demurrer
to the special plea should be sustained and the
action be set down for trial on the general issue.
ARGUMENT FOR THE CITY.
Mr.. Richard O'Gorman and Mr.. A. ]. Vanderpeel
behalf OF the corporation were heard in reply to
Mr. Curtis Ia support OF the special plea In bar to
the action. They cOntrOverted the position taken
by Mr.. Curtis, and maintained that his argument
was not tenable. They c0ntended that from all the
facts and circumstances OF the case the title to the
property did not become vested in defendant, and
that for this reason, the right to receive the
amount specified In the award did not become
vested in the plaintiff, Mr.. Garrison. The proceed
ings before the State Court In this case had been
conducted In strict compliance with the act Of
February q, 1871.
The argument having closed, Judge Woodruff
took the papers and reserved his decision.