Mayor of N. Y. v. Curran

This is an action in the nature of an interpleader, brought by the Mayor, etc. to determine the rights of three separate claimants to a fund of $2,188.88 on deposit with the comptroller, awarded as damages for the taking of certain lands in the Twenty-third ward, designated on the damage map of the Commissioners of Estimate and Assessment in the matter of opening and widening Girard avenue, by the number 25 ; and also to determine who shall pay the assessment for benefit on the same property, amounting to $646.78.

The defendants, Curran, Jacobs and the executors of Dam, each claim the award ; the latter on the ground of a reservation in the deed made by them to Jacobs; Jacobs on the ground that he was the owner of the land at the time of the confirmation of the commissioners’ report, and Curran on the ground that a clause in the deed from Jacobs to him gives the right of the award to the former.

Andrew J. Dam, in his lifetime, was the owner of the property in controversy, together with other adjacent thereto. On December 5,1887, his executors entered into a contract to convey the four lots in question to the defendant Jacobs, and in pursuance thereof executed and delivered a deed dated January 8, 1888, which was recorded January 16, 1888.

This deed described the four lots as they were originally plotted on a map entitled “ Map of Inwood, towns of Morrisania and West Farms, county of Westchester and state of New York,” dated June 1, 1868, and filed in the office of the register of Westchester county, and as they remained until the confirmation of the report hereafter referred to. The property abutted on Girard avenue and the habendum clause of the deed contained the following : “ Except so much of said land as has been taken by public authority, if any has been taken, for the widening and straightening of Girard avenue, and subject to any change in the line of said avenue proposed by the department of public parks before

The defendant Jacobs, on February 27, 1888, conveyed the four lots iu question to the defendant Curran. The description of the property and the conveying clause was precisely the same in this deed as it had been in the deed from the executors of Dam to him, and sets forth that it was the “ same premises heretofore conveyed to the party hereto of the first part (Jacobs), by John W. Murray and Andrew J. Dam, executors, etc., by deed dated January 3, 1888, and recorded in the office of the register of the city and county of New York, January 16, 1888.”

The habendum clause of this deed contained the same exception as that in the deed from the executors of Dam to Jacobs, but does not convey the land subject to the assessment. This deed was recorded on February 28, 1888.

At the time the contract between the executors of Dam and Jacobs was entered into, commissioners had been appointed, and there were proceedings pending for the widening and straightening of Girard avenue. The report of these commissioners was duly made to the supreme court, and on January 23,1888, their report was confirmed. It is therefore clear that on January 3, 1888, the executors of Dam were possessed in fee of the whole of the four lots conveyed by them to Jacobs, unaffected in any way by the proceedings which were pending, and that Jacobs took title to the whole four lots (Fisher v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 73 ).

The exception in the habendum clause, I apprehend, was for no other purpose than to protect the executors from any claim which Jacobs might make against them in case the report of the commissioners had been confirmed without knowledge, so that they could not give good title to the whole of each lot.

It certainly cannot be construed to reserve to them the right to any damage award that might be made in favor of those lots after they had parted with their title thereto. At that time, as far as the parties knew, no award had been

I think, therefore, that the claim of the executors of Dam cannot be sustained.

As between Jacobs and Curran, the question at first sight presents greater difficulty. Jacobs was the owner of the property at the time that the report of the commissioners was confirmed. Upon the confirmation of that report, that part of the property, included in damage map No. 25, became vested in the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of New York, for the purposes for which it was condemned (Consolidation Act, § 990; Fisher v. Mayor, supra). Jacobs claims that the award then became due and payable to him; and he might have cited in support of his contention King v. Mayor, 102 N. Y. 171 , and Peters v. Carleton, 15 State Rep. 980.

The strongest way in which the argument in bis behalf might be presented, I conceive to be that under the authorities last quoted, the award for damages then became due and payable, that they were in the nature of damages for a trespass or wrongful taking of property, and vested in him on the confirmation of the commissioner’s report as a chose in action; that this chose in action was separate from the remaining real estate, and was not conveyed by the deed subsequently given, for that purported to be a conveyance of real property only, and did not convey the right of action personal to Jacobs, especially as that was in the nature of damages for a trespass.

The answer to this position is, I think, that Jacobs, by the exception in the habendum clause in his deed to Curran, professed not to know whether the proceedings of the com

This clause also conveys not only the hereditaments and appurtenances, as was in the case of King v. The Mayor (d-Mjsra), but also “ all . . . property, possession, claim and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity ” of Jacobs, to the property in question, with its appurtenances.

Mow this deed was not effective to convey the property to Curran, as Jacobs had received it from the Dam executors, because the fee to a portion of it had vested in the city. There was, however, a claim or demand growing out of that property against the city to the owner of the lots, which I think it was the intention of the parties to convey to Curran, otherwise it would follow that while Jacobs professed to convey the entire property to Curran for a sum he was willing to take for the whole, and while he concededly did not convey the whole, yet he would be twice paid for the part he did not convey, once by Curran and once by the city, while Curran, who did not get what he bargained for, would be left remediless. This I conceive to be unjust.

It would seem to be more in accordance with equity to hold that Curran, not having received all the laud that Jacobs professed to convey, is entitled to the damages awarded for the taking of that part which he did not receive in lieu of the land.

In my judgment, therefore, Curran is entitled to that part of the award arising from the taking of a portion of the. four lots in question.

The assessment for benefit is also laid upon the eight lots in bulk, and as the benefit may differ as to each lot, and I. have no data from which I can determine that, it will be necessary to order a reference to ascertain who is entitled to the award of damages to the four lots adjoining the four in controversy, the amount of damage which should be awarded to each lot, and the portion of the assessment which should be imposed upon each lot separately.

Inasmuch as the assessment is now a lien upon all the lots in the hands of the present owners, I think the assessment, after being equitably apportioned to each lot, should be first deducted from the damage ascertained for each, and the difference paid to- the persons entitled to receive it as above indicated.