Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-06-22
New Application in Youngsborough
Subdivision Case.
SOME NEW POINTS RAISED
Court Of Appeals and Its Former
Decision.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S ACTION

In the case of Eleanor B. Goodfellow and
others against the District Commissioners
in which the compliments sought to have
the Commissioners compelled by writ of
mandamus to record a subdivision made by
the compliments of the tract known as
"Youngsborough," the compliments have
filed motion in the Court of Appeals for
rehearing. 1t will be remembered that
Judge Bradley granted the writ Of man
damus, whereupon the Commissioners
noted an appeal to the Court of Appeals
The latter court last Monday, as stated in
The Star at the time, reversed the judg-
ment rendered by Judge Bradley, holding
that the courts could not interfere in the
matter, for the reason that in refusing to
record the proposed subdivision the Com
missioners had acted wholly within the dis
erection granted them by Congress in such
matters by the act of August 81 1888.
In their motion for rehearing Of the
E. Hamilton and Fulton & Edwards, coun-
sci for the petitioners, base the motion
on the following grounds: Because the
discretionary powers of the Commissioners
were exhausted in the determination of the
question whether the subdivision was in
conformity to the general plan of the city;
because having decided that 1t was they
had nQnWarrant under the act of 1883 to
reQuireNehe dedication of any land for the
further extension of Delaware avenue on
DETECTED line; because the court was in
fuenced by the supposed existence of sub
divisions recorded under that act, and
legged condition; because the regulations
of the Commissioners made under the
act of 1883 and relied on by the
court as showing the Commissioners
quiescence in by Congress. were not
shown by the record to have been
enforced or applied to any other subdivi-
sion, or that any attempt to apply them
yvoa 1adn hot fhax ave- n
upon in any way to establish or evidence
rule Of conduct, or to make 1t possible that
their legality or correctness might be at
tested: because the court enormously In
tive requirements of the act Of 1888. to the
effect that no future subdivision shall be
recorded unless made in conformity with
the general plan of the city must, under
all rules of statutory construction, be taken
as a positive denial Of the rights of the
Commissioners to defect from that general
plan. or vary the same in the extension of
streets and avenues, and that this con-
struction is supported by the consideration
that there must have been in the legislative
mind knowledge of the losses, injuries
and hardships to the owners of suburban
property, which would follow by
the substitution of the whims and
caprices of the Commissioners in the place
of a fixed plan or rule: because both the
acts of Marcn 2, 1898, and March 2 1885,
give the Commissioners no authority to es-
tablish plan of streets for highways lying
outside the city, the Commissioners being
expressly prohibited from enforcing recog-
milton of such until after the same has been
adopted and become of record, and then
recognition thereof cannot be forced except
when such subdivisions are included in such
adopted and recorded plan: because under
the ruling of the court the compliments,
to sell their property, will be obliged to give
to the District land valued at about 81. 900
not for Delaware avenue, as determined,
but for the possible extension of said ave-
nue., and If the avenue is not extended ac-
cordtng to the present views of the Com
missioners the subdivision viii be not only
useless, but also most detrimental to the
rights and interests of the comp1ainants or
any one holding under them such con-
dition of affairs being repugnant to all
ideas of justice and law; and because the,
surveys and maps made by the Commits
sioners and referred to in the opinion of the
court are not the surveys and maps which
the Commissioners now propose shall be
applied to and adopted as the plan of
streets for the section including the subdi-
vfsio0 of the compartments
The filing of the motion for rehearng
acts. It is said. as a stay in the case, the
mandate OF the Court of Appeals revers-
ing Judge Bradley's allowance of the writ
OF mandamus being withheld meantime to
await the disposition by the appellate
court Of the motion. The court has ad-
journed until next fall; SO, unless the court
directs an order overruling the motion be-
fore then, it is understood that the case
must remain in its present shape until the
meeting of the court after the summer re-