Legal Opinion

In re Fuller

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1880Published

Appeal by the Mayor, &e., of the City of New York, from an order of the Special Term, vacating an assessment for regulating, grading, &c., One-Hundred-and-Eifty-fifth. street, from Ninth Avenue to the Hudson River.

Read the full summary

Appeal by the Mayor, &e., of the City of New York, from an order of the Special Term, vacating an assessment for regulating, grading, &c., One-Hundred-and-Eifty-fifth. street, from Ninth Avenue to the Hudson River. Evidence was given by the petitioner tending to show that on December 12,1871, the Commissioners of the Central Park adopted a resolution as follows: “ Hesolved, That the treasurer be authorized, on behalf of this department, to carry into execution, by contract or otherwise, as authorized by chapter 565 of the Laws of 1865, the regulating, grading, surveying, paving and improving…

1Opinion of the Court

Barrett, J.:

We agree with the court below, that the Central Park Commissioners were originally authorized to make the improvements in question. By the act of 1865 (ch. 565) these commissioners were vested with exclusive jurisdiction “ to lay out streets, roads, public squares and places within that part of the city of New York to the northward of the southerly line of One-Hundred-and-Fifty-fifth street.” The intention, undoubtedly, was to cover this street. We also agree that the commissioners retained this power until its transfer to another department, under an act to which we are about to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Davis v. BraceIllinois Supreme Court · 1876

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API