Case Name: The Mayor of Brooklyn v. Messerole, 26 Wend. 132-142
Court: New York Court for the Correction of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799
Citations: 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Mayor of Brooklyn v. Messerole, 26 Wend. 132-142.
Judges: 
Reporter: Lockwood's Reversed Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
The Mayor of Brooklyn v. Messerole, 26 Wend. 132-142.
Laying out Streets; Assessment; Jurisdiction of Chancery.
The act of the legislature of 23d April, 1835, authorizing the appointment of commissioners to lay out streets, avenues, and squares in the city of Brooklyn, conferred upon them the exclusive power to lay out streets, Sec., and all proceedings had subsequently to the 1st September, 1838, by the common council of Brooklyn, for the widening of a street, not in conformity to the doings of the commissioners under that act are void.
Upon a bill filed by owners of land through which the road or street was thus widened by the common council, to restrain the corporation from collecting the assessments upon the plaintiff’s property on a sale of the land; and praying the incumbrance should be declared void, and the laws discharged, and the common council restrained from further proceeding, &c., the Vice Chancellor of the 1st circuit granted the injunction.
On appeal the Chancellor affirmed it; but
The Court of Errors held that the Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction in the case; that though it might interpose to stay proceedings in certain cases calculated to cast a cloud over the title to real estate, as diminishing its value, and tending to improper litigation, yet, that an illegality in the proceedings here, such as confessedly made them inoperative and void, afforded no ground for the cognizance of a court of equity, and that the Court of Chancery can not interpose by injunction, where it has not jurisdiction over the principal matter, in the ordinary course of its conceded powers; except in cases threatening irreparable injury to real estate, or multiplicity of suits. The party must resort to his legal remedy in such a case for redress.

Opinion:
The decrees of the Tice Chancellor and Chancellor, were accordingly reversed, by 13 to 8.