Case Name: Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898
Citations: 33 A.D. 458
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 458–463

Head Matter:
Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent.
Eminent domain—the common council of the eiiyof Rochester may set aside an award of damages arid refer the matter to new commissioners — what statement of objections to the atoará is sufficient.
The common council of the city of Rochester is authorized, under the provisions of section 179 of the city charter (Laws of 1880, chap. 1'4), to set aside the report -of commissioners appointed to appraise the damages occasioned by the taking of property for the purpose of opening a street in that city, and to refer the matter to new commissioners to be appointed by the court.
Semble, that such action may be based upon the mere statement of one of the members of the common council, to the effect .that, in his opinion, the award of damages was excessive and on a like statement by the assistant city ' attorney, no evidence in relation to- the object-ionsbeing taken on the day fixed by the common- council for hearing objections to the-confirmation of the -report. Follett, J., dissented. ■ '[
• Appeal by the plaintiff, Matilda Schneider, from a judgment of the Supremé Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 23d day of May, 1898, upon the decision -of the court, stating separately the facts found and the conclusions of law,, rendered after á trial • at the MohroS Special Term.
The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Follett, J.
Elbridge L. Adams, for the appellant.
John F. Kinney, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J. :
The constitutionality of the charter was declared by the late General Term, fifth department, when this case ivas before it, and the opinion delivered in this case reported in 90 Hun, 171.
In The Matter of the Laying Out, Opening and Extending Livingston Street in the Village of Rhinebeck (82 N. Y. 621), a charter with provisions quite similar to the charter of the city of Rochester was under review, and it was said the trustees " may, in their discretion, confirm or annul the report."
Following what was ¡|aid in the two cases cited, I am constrained to vote to affirm the judgment.
Green and Ward, JJ., concurred; Follett, J., dissented ; Adams, J., not sitting.