City of Syracuse v. Stacey — 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 719

Majority

p. 719

City of Syracuse, App’lt, v. Richard M. Stacey et al., Resp’ts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,

Filed May 4, 1895.)

Headnote

Appeal from “so much of the order made in said proceeding at a special term held in Syracuse on May 19, 1894, and entered in Onondaga county clerk’s office on June 20, 1894, confirming the award of commissioners of appraisal herein as allows or directs the recovery of costs against the plaintiff by the defendant herein, or any of them, and also from so much thereof as allows or directs recovery against the plaintiff of an individual allowance by the defendants herein, or any of them.”

C. L. Stone, W. A. Beach and Geo. N. Kennedy, for app’lt; Knapp, Nottingham & Andrews, George Barrow and Charles A. Hawley, for respt’s.

Inasmuch as we have reached the conclusion at this term, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Hardin, P. J., in City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 67 St Rep. 704 , that the order of confirmation and the judgment of the special term appointing commissioners should be reversed, and the appraisal vacated and set aside, it follows as a sequence that the order awarding costs to-the respondents against the plaintiffs, and an extra allowance, in so far as *it is appealed from, should fall and be vacated.

Order, so far as it awards costs and an extra allowance to any of the respondents against the plaintiff, vacated and set aside.