crown CU Home > Libraries Home
[x] Close window

Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Use your browser's Print function to print these pages.

Real estate record and builders' guide: v. 10, no. 228: July 27, 1872

Real Estate Record page image for page ldpd_7031128_010_00000029

Text version:

Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view About OCR text.
ND BUILDERS' GUIDE Vol. X. NEYv^ YOlilv, SATUIIDAY, JULY 27, LS72. No, 228. Published Weekly by THE HEAL ESTATE RECORD ASSOCIATION. One j'oar, in advance......................§G 00 All cominuiiications should be addressed to C. "VvT. SWjEEIT. •7 AND 9 WAIIHEX Stiikict. No receipt for money duo the RE.VTi Est.VTK Record will be aoknowlcdged unless signed by one of onr regular collectors, Hk.n'RV D. S.MiTil or TnoJlAS P. Gujni[NGS. All bills for collection will be .sent from the office on a regu¬ larly printed form. Special Notice.. Mit. Conrad Boller has just moved into the spacious building recently erected on Twonfcy-third street, be¬ tween Sixth and Soventli avenues. His larire, elegant and varied stock of furniture has been increased commensur- alel3' with his greater space and additional facilities. THE RIVESSIDE PAESS, The Eiverside Parks question, whicli has agi¬ tated the minds of property-holders for four years, was again, on Tuesday last, before the Su¬ preme Court on a motion to confirm the report of the Commissioners of Assessment. Mr. O'Gorman, on behalf of the Corporation, called attention to' the fact that great delay had al¬ ready taken ""place in this important matter, in consequence of which great pecuniary loss had resulted both to the Corporation and to proper¬ ty-holders whose interests were at stake. Out of 30j000 lots affected by the assessment, not two per cent, of the owners had appeared to oppose the confirmauion of this report. Mr. JohnE. DevlLa, on behalf of fif by proper¬ ty-holders, presented objections, stating that the proceedings were irregular in relation to the whole matter from the very beginning, that the act of 1867, giving the Commissioners title was uncon.stitutional aud void ; that the Legis¬ lature cannot delegate the power of domain unless it is clearly .and unmistakably declared in the law authorizing the proceedings;" that the park is to be for public use ; that the park being public is not evidence that it is for public use, c. g., Bowling Green, Beach stxeet triangle, and the Canal street park; that the arc of assessment was" unreasonably extended to property a mile distant from the northern and southern extremities; that there were four parks, as stated by the Commission¬ ers themselves, though some were not separated by a greater space than the width of an av¬ enue, as in the case of the Central Park and Manhattan, square, and it was unlawful and unprecedented to consider more than one public park ia the same proceeding ; that these parks, being so near to the Central Park, were unne¬ cessary, and that, as the Central Park occupied ground oh which 100,000 people could live, and these parks would exclude about 30,000 people, and the extent of the.island was so limited that the city could not spare the space; that the Commissioners had not complied with the law appointing them, as they had not evidently used their judgment in the consideration of the matter of assessment as required, but had adopted the area of assessment that was fixed upon by the former Commission, and they had i failed to acquire that part of the park now oc¬ cupied by the Hudson River Railroad Company — a strip nearly three miles long and sixty-six feet wide—nor had they assessed that part of the same road which was within the present area of assessment; that they erred in exclud¬ ing in their estimate of expense the costs and proceedings of tho first Board of Commissioners. The appointment of Commissioners by the General Term, when deciding the appeal from "the order of the Special Term, confirming the first rejjort, Mr, Devlin claimed to be unauthor¬ ized and void. The gentlemen presenting a report were therefore without authority, and their so-called report was worthless. Since the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the "United States, it was illegal to take pri¬ vate property for public purposes upon the ap¬ praisal of commissioners ; the value of property so taken must be ascertained by a jury. In conclusion, Mr. Devlin contended that it was illegal to take private property for public purposes without due process of law. He therefore asked that the report be not confirmed, but sent back to the Commissioners. H. H. Anderson presented one objection to the report on behalf of the estate of Jacob Har- seno, which he claimed was assessed erroneous¬ ly. The lots fronting on the Park in Seventy- second street, and those in the rear having no connection with it, were assessed in the same amount, although by no means benefited to the same extent. He asked that the report be sent back for correction in this respect. Mr. Delafield appeared for Mc. Sutphen, who owned property west of Twelfth avenue, between Seventy-second and Seventy-third streets, assessed $1,94^5, being the only piece which had been assessed at all on that luae. He thought the Commissioners had made a mis¬ take, and desired to caU the attention of the court to the fact. S. E. Church, a large property owner, asked that the report be confirmed immediately. He said that he was assessed on twenty-one lots $1,000 more than any one else ; and if another year passed by he would be assessed $1,000 more. The property owners lost $5,000,000 by the delay in confirmation of the rexsort, and he had been out of pocket a large amount, being unable to build or sell, or do anything with his property. J. M. Davis appeared for property-owners in One Hundred and Fifteenth street and Twelfth avenue, which was not used as a street. He claiined that he should be allowed for the land taken as far as the middle of what would have been Twelfth avenue, if laid out, but he was only allowed to the line of the sidewalk. Mr. O'Gorman in reply said he thought it a fair subject of congratulation to the court, the legal representatives of the city and certainly to the Commissioners in this case, that in a pubHc work of so great magnitude, affecting so many and so important interests, so few objec¬ tions have been made. Not two per cent, of all those who have been assessed or affected by this proceeding were represented as objecting to the report. Thh'ty thousand lots and more had been taken for this imi^rovement; and yet the court saw that the number of objections were exceeding¬ ly small. Mr. O'Gorman proceeded to notice the several objections made by Mr. Devlin and those who followed him, claiming that they were entirely invalid, as to the statement that the area of assessment of the two sets of Com¬ missioners were identical. Mr. O'Gorman denied that this was the case. As to the road-bed of the railroad not having been taken, he said that the judges of the Gen¬ eral Term, who had set aside the first report, expressed the con\dction that it could not legal¬ ly be done, though the report wc^s set a.side on other grounds. The railway should not be as¬ sessed, because it received no benefit. It held its lands for a specific-use. As to the objection that the expenses of the former Commissioners were included iu the present assessment, Mr. O'Gorman said that the second Commissioners made use, as a mat¬ ter of necessity, of the labors of the former Commissioners, and had all the advantage of it. Under these circumstances the Commis¬ sioners proi)erly decided that the expenses in¬ curred, by which they benefited, should be included. Mr. O'Gorman scouted the idea that the Fif¬ teenth Amendment had any applicability to questions arising in this case. The "due pro¬ cess of laviT" words in the Amendment could not be construed to mean trial by jury. In conclusion he requested the court to take into consideration the impoii;ance of a speedy decision. Every day's delay was of great con¬ sequence. The taxes were about being settled for the year. Much delay would render an entirely new proceeding almcst necessary, and therefore he followed the gentleman who rep¬ resented the three clients in asking on the part of the citizens of New York, that the court give this matter its earliest attention, and let the public know what was the result of this proceeding. Ex-Judge Strong spoke in favor of the ac¬ tion of the Commissioners in reference to tho roadway of the Hudson River Railroad. The court then adjourned to the 3d of Au¬ gust, at 13 o'clock. MEOHANIOS' LIENS. NElSr TO UK. July 20 JBkoad ST., AV. s. (Nos. 10 & 18). James Mulry agt. N. Y. Stock Ex¬ change........................... .f.5S00 23 BnoADWAY, E. s. (N'o. SIO). Wooii- ward Steam Pump Mfg. Co. agt. Edward T. Pviley........,........ 1 ,.513 18 23 Chambers st., s. *s. (No. 32). Hkn- ry V. Mandeville and Hii'ani Sigler agt. John Doe.................... 2,77.5 09 22 Eighth st., n. s. (No. 27). John H. Keyser agt. Anna C. Sherlock. 9.v5 .59 24 East Bkoapwat, s. s. (No. 183). Edward Hall agt. S. Barnetfc...... 77 25 IS PlETY-THIUD ST., S. S. (NO. 44G W.). G. & W. Crawford agt. Patrick Corcoran......................... 280 93 Fifty-fourth st., s. s., 5 houses") H J, running w. 4th av..............j Fourth av., w. s., 2 houses kun- C ning-s. .54th st..................; John Sullivan agt. Nicholas L. De- marest............................ 5G0 00 20 First av. and UOth st., n. w. cok., . 2.5x100. Samuel P. Westervelt agt. . Charles Tritclien......;.......... 803 00 20 First av., w. s., extending from 109th to 110th St., and 150 ft. on each street. Thain & Buchanan agt. iffiram Moore.,.............. 3,000 00