
    In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Respondent, v. William C. Tompkins and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Others, Relative to Acquiring Title to Certain Land.
    
      Eminent domain—an order confirming a report, signed by a commissioner, in obedience to a mandamus which has been set aside, will be vacated—effect of the infancy of the parties.
    
    Where one of the commissioners of appraisal appointed in a condemnation proceeding signed the report against his will, in obedience to a peremptory-writ of mandamus which has been subsequently adjudged to have been improperly issued, the order confirming the report will be vacated.
    Infants acquire no greater right under void acts than do adults.
    Appeal by the defendants, William C. Tompkins and others, from an - order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special-Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 4th day of February, 1901, vacating and setting aside a final order confirming the awards of commissioners in condemnation proceedings.
    
      L. M. Berkeley, for the appellants.
    
      William H. Godden, for the respondent.
   Van Brunt, P. J.:

The circumstances under which the report in question -was signed by Mr. Morrison, one of the commissioners, having been before this "court in the case' of People ex rel. Comstock v. Morrison (54 App. Div. 262), it is not necessary to rehearse the facts. This court there held that the peremptory mandamus, under the pressure of which Hr. Morrison signed the report, was improperly issued, and the order directing its issuance was reversed and the motion for a mandamus denied, which adjudication has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Mr. Morrison having signed the report in question in obedience to a mandate of this court and against his own will, and such mandate having been adjudged to have been improper, and it having been adjudged that the application therefor should have been denied, the signature of the report by Mr. Morrison was made while he was under duress, and in law the report never had been signed by such commissioner at the time of the confirmation; ■and, hence, such order of confirmation was irregular and was properly set aside.

The suggestion that the court cannot interfere with the vested rights of infants certainly can have no weight under such circumstances. Infants can get no greater rights than adults where an act is done under circumstances which make it null and void. ■

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Rumsey, Patterson and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.  