Having at this term reached the conclusion, for the reasons stated in the opinion of HARDIN, P. J., in City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 33 N. Y. Supp. 929, that the judgment and order appointing the commissioners stiould be reversed, .and appraisal vacated, and the order of confirmation reversed, it is unnecessary to pass upon the questions presented by the appeal herein, and the order should be vacated and set aside. Order denying motion to send back to the commissioners of appraisal herein the report made by them on May 7, 1894, vacated and set aside, without costs to either party upon this appeal.
33 N.Y.S. 943
CITY OF SYRACUSE v. STACEY et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
May 4, 1895.)
Appeal from special term, Onondaga county.
Proceeding by the city of Syracuse against Richard M. Stacey, Leonard H. Earll, the Glenside Woolen Mills, Central New York Electric Light & Power Company, Simon D. Paddock, George Barrow, and others, to condemn real estate. From “an order made in said proceeding at a special term of said court held in Syracuse on May 19, 1894, * * * denying motion of said defendants and others to send back to the commissioners of appraisal herein the report made and filed by them on May 7, 1894, and requiring and directing them to make a further or supplemental report, and from the whole of said order,” defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.
*944George Barrow, Knapp, Nottingham & Andrews, and Charles A. Hawley, for appellants.
C. L. Stone, W. A. Beach, and Geo. N. Kennedy, for respondent.
City of Syracuse v. Stacey
33 N.Y.S. 943
Case Details
33 N.Y.S. 943
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!