People Ex Rel. Eckerson v. . Christie
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henderson v. Silco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1971)
- Romas v. Huffcut (New York Supreme Court 1963)
- People ex rel. Irving Trust Co. v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- In re Purity Co-operative Bakery Ass'n (New York Supreme Court 1940)
- People ex rel. Empire Mortgage Co. v. Cantor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1920)
- People ex rel. Hudson v. State Board of Tax Commissioners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
- People ex rel. Glen Head Realty Co. v. Garland (New York Supreme Court 1911)
- People ex rel. Victoria Paper Mills Co. v. Summerville (New York Supreme Court 1907)
- People ex rel. Scobell v. Kilborn (New York Supreme Court 1901)
- People ex rel. West Shore Railroad v. Adams (New York Supreme Court 1890)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are not to review the findings of fact which determined the inequality of the relators’ assessment when compared with that of the other property of the town. (People *162 ex rel. R. W. & O. R. R. Co. v. Hicks, 105 N. Y. 198; People ex rel. K. F. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 107 id. 544.) We are only to inquire whether there was legal evidence tending to that conclusion, and whether any errors of law affected the ultimate decision. The principle objection argued is that the assessment-roll was not returned, and the comparison of values was with a few pieces of property without any proof of the general rate of assessment in the town. The case relied .on is People ex rel. Warren v. Carter (109 N. Y. 576), in ■which we held that comparison with a single lot did not show ■that relator was injured. In the present case-the comparison •was with all the brick-making properties in the town, and which were selected from the roll by a stipulation mutually agreed •on. ¡No question was in any manner raised on the hearing ■that these did not fairly represent the general rate of assess■ment, or that they furnished an inadequate basis of comparison; but, on the contrary, both parties assumed their sufficiency for -the purpose intended, and all the evidence was directed to the question of relative values. At least, under the circumstances here presented, it should be presumed that the properties selected out from the roll by mutual agreement, and used with- . out objection as the basis of comparison, did fairly represent the .proportionate rate of assessment of the property of the town, :and so serve as a correct basis for comparison.
We are also of opinion that there was a sufficient application .to the assessors to reduce the tax, if such application was neees- . sary to the relief which has been granted. The assessors treated -it as sufficient and acted upon it without objection by reducing ■the assessment to the extent of $10,000. We think there was .no legal error which requires a reversal.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.