In the Matter of the Application of Philip Bohnet for a Peremptory Mandamus. David A. Doyle, Appellant; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York and Others, Respondents

In the Matter of the Application of Philip Bohnet for a Peremptory Mandamus. David A. Doyle, Appellant; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York and Others, Respondents. Perempioi'y mandamus compelling the removal of incumbrances from streets— apwson aggrieved, cannot, after the writ has issued, be made a party to the proceeding. Where a peremptory mandamus has issued, requiring city officials to remove certain incumbrances from the streets of a city, a third person, aggrieved thereby, is no,t entitled to be made a party to the proceeding. "When the writ has issued the proceeding is terminated. Appeal by David A. Doyle from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Mew York Special Term, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York on the 13th day of July, 1896, denying his application to intervene and be made a party respondent in the proceeding. James R. Fancher, for the appellant. Charles Blandy, for the relator, respondent. Terence Farley, for commissioner of public works and others, respondents. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam :] Per Curiam : This proceeding was commenced to obtain a peremptory mandamus requiring the mayor, etc., of the city of Mew York, the commissioner of public works and the superintendent of incumbrances, to remove from certain of the public streets of the city of Mew York certain incumbrances described in the writ, and a peremptory mandamus ivas, upon the 28th of June, 1896, duly issued in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Subsequently, and on July 2, 1896, an order to show cause was obtained requiring the parties to that proceeding to show cause why an order should not be made directing that the appellant Doyle be made a party respondent therein, and this is an appeal from the order denying that motion. We think this order should be affirmed, upon the ground that when the motion was made no proceeding was pending to which the appellant could be made a party. The writ of mandamus had issued requiring the public officers to perform their duty, and the proceeding had terminated. If any one interfered with the rights of the appellant he had a remedy against the one so interfering; but it would be useless to make him a party to a proceeding which had terminated by the final order and the issuing of the writ of mandamus under it. The order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Barrett; Rumsey, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ. Order affirmed, with costs.