The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-04-13
O1KEY HILL'S FERRY LEASE.
An Effort at Law TO Restore 100000 An.
nuaiiy to the sinking Fund.

Corroro,i,, co,ns,l xvti,... ,.,
N"ipVi"u"h 'ouiiS'i "hllhcy mtclY
brought suit in equity to break the ctys lease
Of the ferry franchises To Brooklvn ,,,tn In
,acn SO -, =, '"' 'i"u' III
loo'-fo To the Union FERRY Company at the
nominal rental Of 81 year. At the first hear
in,, N.esre siuir,n md Nulcr for tho l,,....i
- ~ WV WV li"-
"H's' o"oc'ed To thc'ompia'h'oh Wegtound OF
the insulllcicncy Of its avermcnts and the plain
tiff ,vna ,,i,eo I.ovo 10 ,unpJ Nh, al, -,
a..a,.. IL, ,,.,.. H.. III. w.. CIV ",S
Supreme Court Special Term.
Tho co,nnl.int no amend,d ovcra ,ho, g.
-, .V"' p'''n. 90 ''' 49, "'''' '"", lor
nearly TWO hundred years tho city enjoyed an
Of is t "u 3rannS,Ses o pro"lr U 'pe ,esse
- 80 10 ""
years prior To 1911 tnls revenue amounted to
tlu3 900 annually. This revenue, by Council
ordiu,pco md lng,slntiva ennctnc,, ,,o. a.,
''i'',''.-' """ |.,',' f', W. was "p-
proprlated To the SINKING luhd Tor tho protcc-
tion Of the holders of the various city stocks
mil .ceuri,i,s IT, 1871 thc Sinki,,, r,,,I -,
"iu s'Vur''''s' III 20 VI, "''s'ns una COM
corresnoudonce with the officers Of tho ir,ion
Ferry Cnunnnv lnased tho frnnebia.s -, a.,
Oo",i"ny' y,U ,'I ,'s's Oh inc
Hamilton. South. wall. Fulton and Catharino
Ferries to that company for tho nominal ann,
~ Al ,nr,aIi nrn,iJ.d ,hn, un
" - "n"u"l9' pi"''"" "'"' 'io company
would agree 10 reduce the tarcs 20 one cent be-
tween the hours Ot and 1880 A. VI. and L. VI.
This they agreed To de-. and since that time the
sinking fund has been deprived Of large
revenue. and the holders Of city securities have
10y SO much been deprived 81 the legal proter-
ton to which they were entitled. The complaint
proceeded Ia aver that the sinking Fund Com
missionrrs had no power to execute such "a
lease: that ia execution was contrary To public
policy. injurious t. taxpayers, and that it was "a
cloud on the cty's title TO the franchises and
ought 10 be- declared void.
The shape in which the suit came up ycster-
day was a motion 10y the defendants to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the relief
sought was one that might bc obtained In u
Suii ~ law. ana as such court OF equity had No
jurisdiction.
IN support Of this motion Counsellor Miller
laid down the propos ition that courts in equity
nave steadily declined To exercise their juris-
diction ~ long NJ the complainant can obtain
relief 10y ordinary law proceedings. He cited
the case " Tilden W. the Mayor. to restrain the
collection of An assessment improperly levied.
In this the Court held that the ilegality an
pcared On the face Of the assessment return,
needing no nXirinsic proof and So did not need
the interpo-ition II a court Of equity. He also
held that 1t was absurd TO act up the plea of "a
cloud upon title 10 right. A franchise is
defined TO hr an incorporral hcrcditament
This plea WAS urged in the suit OF Smith against
the Mayor, to set inside u tax upon one Of tha
river hulkheads in which the Court oi Appcals
held that ther" was no precedent for an action
in equity To- remove the cloud upon the title Ia
an incorporeal hereditamcnt
II the city officials who made the lcnea had no
powA TO do II: If they in making IL acted CON