The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-11-11
TRANSIT BOND REDUCED.
IPPELLATE COURT ours 1T FROM
xI5.JOO.OOO 10 S5,OOO. 900.

pr,.,,,,y .t,.,,c. y,, nr,nt Dissent. from
This opinion say. the Lower Bond
Does Not sufficiently Protect Interests OF
Property owners Bids to lie Invited Now
The sm,u,t of tina hond ia b. reuuired from
,ba .nnt,,r,ors Tor thu co,.,ructiou of thu
nnd.ryrou,d roads VA. r.duc.d bv tho AppeI.
I,,o pIyi.i,, o,,b, surname Court Yesterday
,ror, eli onn ooo n s5oDOOOo per curtain
nninion NJ tns,ices Bnrret,. pa,er,on and In
.r.h,r, r,s b,ndsd ,I,rp and a lopp.r dis.
49,. ,i,,,', h pr..tIing I,s,,oa y.n
Brunt The opinion ot the court IL as follows
"rb. rnr,,r,,in, Counsel. ON behnl, of In.
Wv 80 t,,.i,,c iai,., -uh ,L.
Rapid Transit Com missioners in this appliea-
tion md ,h. mipiclpm ,uthoriti.. az wall
wv "",'' ',""''. V"'''s''o"o'' "a,'"s
represented that In their opinion bond OF
.s5.OOO.OOo will. in view II the form Of the con
tract anu IN" conditions unher Whlch tho
rapid transit road j. now to he constructed.
smpIy pro,.r, the city, the Eapld Transit Com
49,, ,.,-,'.,i - 81. ",,,,.,.,i.
miesl"n"rT "f" ie"oN'u rom 'ne STIPULATION
which they gave H. n condition upon TIE con-
6rnstipp Of tho r.port Of the Com mi,,ioners
a. - Wv ", w ~ ,.'n.,.s., ~, 49,. 80
posed railway. to the oxt-nt that bond Of
s5,Oouuru Will Ia compliance with the stip-
ula,ior 49, " " WV ''''''''' WIN WV
The 'issonting opinion Of Presiding Justice
VIM" ~ view ~ IN" evidence produced OF
the d !lIrultv ~ procuring n hond in the sum OF
S11 mn, uun In s.cu,, IN. rorform,,ce ~ Nh.
' ~ Wv "
propoS'h rhrlh'trahst contract. so lar as u
related 20 construction and equipment, n re-
duc,to, II, tho au,nurt Of IN. bond rniubt be
', "" " " ' ~ " "
1ustlh-i, vet II does not seem 10 me that
IN justice ~ the property owners such a
radu,,.,, .ho,LI IA. mazda m. v,r,usty 10
49,, ~ '',, -, W
ueprlN" th"h OF the security whlch upon
the original Application was by this
Court ,urru-d absolutely necessary for their
prDtec' lou aud urnn which the consent OF the
Court v.s founded. 40 far rs the consent 81
the city authorities 20 the road is concerned
that IN No way pro'scts those whose Interests
the Appellate DIVISION. in passing upon this
application. Is bound to project. The argu-
ment advanced that the security demanded is
In excess ul that h'ch has ever been required
in similar contracts i IT no possible weight;
because there has never yet been contract
entered into urssrnting any OF the peculiar
features which are 80 prominent in the pro-
while Il 10 per cent. hond might possibly
be reasonable security fer construction IL Ia
after construction IL completed that tho IN ain
burdens 1T the cont rdStOr begin. He ia them
for III" first time required To- invest in th,.
enterprise his own money 20 the extent OF over
80 pe' cent 81 tho entire cost of construction
and in order TO secure this advance a bond OF
less than one hall the amount IA rsuuirsd IL
~ con r.,isi upon the moving papers tn st the
security required hy the city of Boston unnn ia
subway contracts was 81 per cent which
OF &Suup ODO or iU.UO1.UDU The security re-
puIrnJ ~ tt. IFptt.,I .t.,,s E,.,...,,a.,. =