The New York herald., 1877-02-13


this the largo Murray Hill outlet sewer discharged
about 100 feet east OF First avenue, which was then
the high watcr mark. Charick undertook to continue
this sewer through tho made land by means Of box
extension, but constructed the 80 ncgligently
that it became choked with dirt, the SOW
age was set back cellars on First ave-
nue. and Tnirsy.four.h street were n n1Suea VOC ra
ers Loan and Trust Company held the title 70 most Of
the land in the vicinity. The residents complained so
bitterly OF the overowng OF the that Mr. Craven
and Mr. Weston, OF the Croton Aqueduct Board, which
then had charge OF tho sewer undertook TO remedy tue
difficulty by building sside cut from the mouth OF
the old sewer northery across Thirty fourth street TO
land then covered with water, between Thirty ourth
and Thirtynnh streets This, u Is conendea oy e .ne
city, was done with the license OF Mr.. Tanan, VINO
then owned the land After this side cut had peen
some time In operation the p'aintin bougns .ne 'ana
middle OF the block between Thrty-fourth and Tnrty-
nhn nearly to Thirtysixth street. In July, 1861 no
"A permit to build q bulkhoad on his river front by
the covenant In the decd from the CITY 10
through Taiman, he purchased II was necessary Tor
tho plaintiff TO obtain possession from the CITY before
building any bulkheads or nllins in any streets ~
conicnded by tho defendants that permit from tho
Street Commissioner Is not permit from the city,
which act In the matter through the Common
Council They also contend that paintin had no per-
MISSION from any MI in tho street Tho plain
t insists with regard TO this point that this covenant
relates only to the bukhcad to be built the limo OF
avenue A; that he did not bui!d any bukhcad there,
but old build il on his land, where /: has been
he'd by the Court OF Appeals, ppn,, IN TINS very very
built his bukhead Mr.. Duryca next began
to I'LL In from the same toward the shore. and also
from the shore outward BY degrees he 80 prevented
tho natural flow IRON the scwcr AS TO force u through
canal across the very centre Of his land and when he
undertook to fill this the Bureau OF Sewers forbade
him under threats OF fine and Imprisonment Mean
whilo the discharge became worry Offensive so much so
that tho Board OF Health ordered him to continue
filing in upon the same threats as those used By tho
Croon Board He did not Ill in, but allowed the water
escape his andsand alleges tnat IN consequence
he unable to improve or rent his land for nearly
two years.
The city contends that he should have continued
The saver through his mado land aud II he chose not
10 do so that he must take the consequences. The
trial OF the suit was commenced yesterday before
Judge Donohue. Mcssrs + J. Fthian and A. j. VAN
dcrpocl appear as counsel for tho piantn, and AS
sis.ant Corporation Counsel A. j. Rcqucr and e. Henry
Iacombe for tho city. The trial promises 10 occupy
several days.
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF LAW.
william G. Nicoll, through his attorneys, Messrs.
Hatch, Van Allen h Brown, filed yesterday seven
lengthy complaints in actions brought by him In the
Supreme Court possession of seventeen dlf-
fcren Fifth avenue The respective defendants
in these actions Levi p. Morton. William j. Cess
nor, John W. Healy, William f. Waring, George M.
Boyd aud Margaret NJ Ahearne. Tho property is
worth over $400, 00O The complaints state that in
ls4o Daniel rrembly was appointed receiver of tho
bill and that Poillon ordered 10 and did deed all
his property such receiver that In 1912 Poon went
into bankruptcy and that he and the assignee In bank
ruptcy together with an old judgment creditor or
Poion's created cloud on the receivers title by
making subsequent deeds, purporting to convey the
ttc that Polon's ownership OF the lots was unknown
for hrty.hvc years that Tremby died long ago. that
the care and OF the property went to the Court
OF Chanccry, and that when this court was abosheu
such care and ro transferred TO the Supreme
Court Mr. Nicoll appointed receiver 10 place OF
Mr. Trembly and claims that by virtue OF Poillons as
sgnment TO rrembly, made thrty-sevcn years ago.
aud the proceeding by creditors bill which remains
pending the holder OF the title to the real estate
The matter brises with difficult questions OF law
One is how far bona 1de purchasers are chargcable
with notice Of proceedings in equity suits and appoint
ment receivers under the old practice whero no lis
where an assignee in bankruptcy convey
real whether purchasers must take notice OF re-
citai in tho banKrupt's schedule Still another ques-
ton is what rccitas In the decd forming the hold
crs chain OF title the purchaser is bound to take no.
tice The first question IL whether at the expiration
of the ten years lien real estate judgment Crcd
tor can issue execution and cut of by sberhs sale
junior Judgment creditor who has filed creditors
bill? These questions black letter decisions of
English courts and the old chancery reports. They
show, furthermore. that it Is often a very difficult
thing to search title, and that is dangerous for an
attorney TO certify that title is perfect