New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-27
THE BROADWAY WIDENING.

ASSESSED PROPERTY-OWNERS.
In May, 1869, the Legislature of this State
passed ACT for the widening and strengthening OF
Broadwsv making oil acts referring to street openings
apply 10 this purpose except otherwise provided In
IT. Under that law, Dec IS 1870 report OF the Com
miSsoners OF Estimate aud Assessment was confirmed
by Supreme Court Special Term. As soon as the
contents this reuort known there general
outcry against its inequality. This was specially
noticeable In the case property recently acquired by
James Watson the then County Auditor. who
reputed be che stakeholder for the Ring" Watson
died suddenly IN January 1871, and immediately after
his deoease bill vas introduced in the Legislature,
which was passed Fen. 81. 1871. providing that au
appeal mght b. taken from the Commissioners report
within four months from tts confirmation and also pro-
viding that the cry, that time, might, at its
option, apply at ChA vacate the order OF
hrmatOn. In city adopted the second course
which 1t did, the Judge authorized, II he found
the report unj ineQuira0e vaoate the order OF
confirmation aud send back the whole report 70
Commissioners for correction.
Judge CsFdoz1 before whom the motion made.
set aside the first It, aud 1t back Com
missoners April g. ISL. The new Commissioners made
entirely new report. which ultimately
armed. ana which al cred very materially the awards
and Of those interested. From the first
lawyers declared the of February. 1871, void
and refused to take In the proceedings under
&C. declaring that II tbs assessments of their clients
increased, the awards 70 them were diminished.
they would advise Them TO refuse TO pay the increased
assessment for the original award. J. Watts
DE Peyster. instead Of following this advice, opposed
order setting the rst report and appealed from
81 to the Court OF Appeals which decided against him.
Under the advice MeSsrs. Shaw and Allison, his
counsel DInie Garrison, award for damages had
been reduced by second OF Commissioners from
too 70 about $oD took the ground that this second
report nulity. brought suit against the city
for the $4,000 awarded by the first report. Being
citizen of NeWersey he brought the suit the United
States Courts. All tue facts WERE OF course known
and the Questions OF law raised by the plaintiffs
demurrer TO the de endants special plea. These ques
tons grew out OF the act OF 1872 which applicable
10 this prOceedlS aud clause in the special act OF
1863. BY the of 1918. report of the Com
missiOners in street opening matters, when confirmed
by the court. ds 1II and conclusive, and
subject TO notifications by OF the
pOraton becomes Immediately seized fee Of the lands
TAKEN with the right OF possession. and the OF
the land becomes ed TO tue award though his right
for is deferred for four months. In the Of
1869 The Commissioners are required TO designate the
Of the actual opentng OF that part OF Broadway
be wideued aud strai Entened. The Commissioners
named day for such opening Dec 81, 1870 The
plaintiff claimed under these a contract be-
tween city and himself which the LEGISLATURE
under the United STATES Constitution, could not impair
aud vested right to the which. under the
Constitution could MT be taken away. The United
states Circu. Court Oyerrued the demurrer and the
plaintiff appealed tue Supreme Court of the United
States.
The case was argued there by Messrs Shaw and ALI
son and George TcGnor Curtis for the plaintiff and by
A VdnderpOel for defendI The Court mas decided
the ndAut. the of 1871 not uncOnst-
tutiOna. under State the United States
Constitutions given by Judge Field,
writes the opinion OF the Court After staung the
facts in case. a1d before the Supreme
Court OF the United States, Judge Field says:
AS basis for plant n argument, in support OF the
objections han tue demurrer. lie assumes
L q
improvement If streets III the city OF YORK,
passed in 1913 waca Of the Laws referred 10
In the act made applicable 70 the improve
ment aut OrlzsI tue procee ngs OF the Commissioners
then report confirmed DY tue supreme Court
ia Ia and conc usve OF the rlglt OF the city
the property ana tne plaintiff to the award that
neither su Ject u ANY legislative or Judcla inter
ference Tue same pol ions here urged were relied
upon in the Supreme Court and the Court or Appeals
OF the state on the appeal IlC'. tne M t on
confirmation taken bY one or the parties 10 Whoin an
held provision Ia the statute OF 1915 when de-
cares that the report % thg vi haii %e
nnaI ana cOncIusivc,' only meant that no appeal
should be nade order higher court, and
mat n dd pr ur an application 10 The court TO
yaeate the order Ike, regudrlty OF frdu1 IN he
proceedings; that tn supreme Court had power 10 pear
such motOus ordinary or judgments ahd ORDERS
u then pending; aud maj no reason eAnss g
against the possession or exercise % tne ~
of TINS character. Tie pruvisoD IN question: SAID the
vsed I'M res, IN mistake and lrregnarity or fraud.
whereby important rigIs Oi properly were aequreu OF
merits and is satisfied win that. All Judgments are
liable be set aside ur iland' intake, or r,
a T s"rrene Court held Gnat the of 1871
s,tntlonii Toe Court of Appeals held Chat, indie
nendent OF the acc, and without passing upon its
TadItv the SIpIeme Court mad authority 70 SCI aSue
the order upon the grounds stated. II tne views oi
etber Of these correct, tney dispose OF the
Questions IN tins Aud the constructlou oI ne
20 ne srate ov the Court Appeals, aud It's de-
ten a. IN fne powers Supreme Court OF the
,a fo correct or set aside its own Judgments, upon
publication within time. for mistake rregu-
iirrty or fraud. conclusive upon us. Ihere is,
therefore presented III when ~ eau NC justly
cOntended that contract has Deen lnpaireu' ,,
Itmay be DOUBTED wIetleF I6 nv coutr,ct
anon an agreement, express or Implied rs coeIdo'
within the meaning OF tile cOhsutut!Ona prohIDltion
Fl - someriues called Oy textwriters contract OF
record because establishes legal CONNECTION 10 pay
The amount recovered. and by HcuOn Oi Jaw, WDere
there is a legal obligation 10 pay promise 10 pay rs n
Piled "It upon ms prlnclpe, s1ys on.y, eHS az
an action fOrm ex c0airdetr WIZ lc On M ~ a.
eurt M record" but not perceived how THIS nc
ton can convert the result Of poceeHmg no. ROUNDED
upon agreement express or 90 up
acuOn wanting assent OF the pdrtes hto
within meaning OF tue clause o tne ~ 1
tuOn which fOrbis any lrglsl1Ou -o,bi,,on
gat,on Tie purpose OF the constitutional pronoIton
va the main or good farm ID the stpulauons oi
parties against auy stat d,ed a. resoect ~
yen TO no fAith IS peugeu III W
the operation OF the prohibition IN tne Prooeeuns "
eondeun the property VI The paln ior pueiic
fhere was nothing the nature OF contract between
him and the cay. the State IN virtue OF her lsu' Vi
eminent domain had authorize tne ely " nt in1
rnDerty for a public purpose, upon making 10 nm Just
Compensation. AL that the Constitution or usCloc &c
0uired was hat just COMPENSATION SHOULD Oe naue "
him aud his proper wocIu tnen W 'AA'"' " "
moi lie assenled 10 the measure. ~ ,
The proceeding 10 ascertain the dement's or losses
vpbtch OF property WDen
for public use and thus the compensation 10 Dc maae 70
the nature OF an inquest 90 tne paTt % te
Gate and necessarily under her control IL IS hef
duty TO that the estimates made are just NOT merely
70 individual whose property Is taken, out ~ tae
public which pay for II. Aud she can 70 that END
vacate authorize vacation OF any inquest taken
by direction, 10 ascertain particular iacs ior ner
guidance where the proceeding has been ireguary or
frauduentiy conducted or IN when error nas inVeI
OF procedure be observed viii secure fair hearing
for parties interested In tue property nor 40 we
perceive this of the State can be anoted oS
he fact