The New York herald., 1877-05-04
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coUET-cHAMBERs.


Matter Of Ford-Although there two contracts
in this there was but one work, and that work
passed. consequently this does TALL within the
limitation imposed by the Court of Appeals upon
operation OF the decision In tho OF Penguet when
the latter before that Court motion for
rcargument Ii correctly understand the opinion
OF the Court of Appeals In that the Court holds
that whore the work completed before tho act
passed the validity OF the assessment may be con-
tested under the exception contained in the seventh
certificate by the contract Commissioners but as TO
work completed after the passage OF the act the Ger.
hcate Of the Commissioners preclrdes tho vacation Of
the assessment (See also matter Of Pcnguet Hun,
434, 437.) 1t makes difference that the work was
done undcr two contracts, Tar the substantial
rights OF the petitioner are concerned. People
Mayor, &C., Hun, $685. There Irregularities In
the performance OF the work, but am not prepared
say that there actual the letting ex
ecuton OF the Quinn contract, and the Commissioners
having ound that the Farley contract was Tree from
fraud the doctrine OF the Pcnguet case compels TO
deny this application.
Matter OF Burmcistcr.-I do not appreciate the dis
tinctlon which Is sought TO be drawn between the
words 'nagging" and 'pavipg;" and, notwithstand-
ing the additional testimony taken since this
sent back by the General Term Tor further proof,
adhere to the view long entertained by that tho
words paving' and ''repaving," emp poyed in the
acts OF 1872 and 1874 include the sidewalks the
walks the curbs and gutter stones and the carriage
way. l can discover nothing IN those acts which ind.
cate an intention on the part Of the Legisatureto to
restrict those to the covering OF the carriage
way Tho remarks OF Mr. Justice Allen IN the Of
tho matter Of Phillips 100 N. " % and 23 leave
matter OF Burke, G2 n. Y, 224) The General Term
did not decide this point when this case was
last before them, and l am therefore at liberty
before this Court Tor the FIRST time, and
also to follow tho decisions made by the Court OF Ap
peals IN other The statutes OF 1872 aud 1874
should. in my opinion be literally aud narrowly
construed, being remedial to the properly owner.
IL appears from the evidence that the work for which
this assessment laid completed boiore tho
oi1S72 was passed The petitioner therefore entitled
to avail himself OF the exception contained in the
seventh section Of that opinion tho Court
oil Appeals Oh the motion Tor reargument ia PEN
gucts case And this notw stan dug the cert ihcnte
that the ordinance and resolutions were not ndver-
tsed, as required by law, in the Official newspaper
u am correct In tho position that this IS OF
repaving-tnis objection is fatal to the validity OF the
assessment Assessment vacated.
BY Judge Donohue.
Wright vs.. Sullivan; Matter OF tho New York and
brooklyn Bridge and to acquire title, &c Dale vs.
Aowe; Speiss VS. kearney; Hawley vs.. Gilmore
van VS.. Moynaban Battcrshall vs. Saamon.-Grantcd.
Kitchen vs.. Jackson; Hand VS.. Burrows.-Motions
denied.
Wolff vs. Phillips.-Memorandum.
People VS.. Mason Manufacturing Company--I want
to counsel.
Mcnamara vs. Sexton. No cause for order
Dunn VS. BorgsteIn aud another.-Must bo noticsl.
SUPREME COURT, cIRCUIT.-PABT 2.
BY Judge Barrett.
Dudcn, ct al vs. Waiizicldcr.-See opinion.
BY Judge Lawrence.
Gilbert and another, &c, VS.. Marsh, &c.-case and
amendments settled.
coJMoN PLEAs-cHAMBERs.
by Judge G. p. DAILY.
New York Juvenile Guardian Society VS.. Roosevelt -
Sec opinion.
Candelar vs.. Harrngton.-Motion vacatipg jud gmcnt
granted
DcvIin vs. Kpg.--Moton granted
Abr vs. Borestedt; Philips vs. Sharpe; McNcal w.
granted