People ex rel. Warren v. Carter

• Decision Date: 18 March 1890
• Citation: 119 N.Y. 557,23 N.E. 926
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. WARREN et al. v. CARTER et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

119 N.Y. 557

23 N.E. 926

PEOPLE ex rel. WARREN et al.

v.CARTER et al.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 18, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, third department.

RUGER, C. J., dissenting.

R. A. Parmenter, for appellants.

G. B. Wellington, for respondents.

EARL, J.

This proceeding was instituted by the relators under chapter 269 of the Laws of 1880, to review an assessment made by the assessors of the city of Troy for the year 1887 upon their property in that city known as ‘River View,’ which had been assessed at $60,500. The assessors had in each of the years 1885 and 1886 assessed the property at the same sum, and by proceedings instituted in each of those years, under the same act, the relators had procured a judicial determination that the actual value of the property was $40,000, and that the assessment should be reduced to that sum. That adjudication was binding upon these defendants. In the year 1887 the assessors professed to act upon the statutory rule of assessing all real estate in the city at its actual value, and they had no right to assess the property in question at any greater value than $40,000, unless it was worth more. Upon the trial of this matter the relator produced the records in the prior proceedings, and then gave evidence tending to show that there had been no change in that value of the property, and that it was not worth to exceed $40,000. The defendants gave evidence controverting the value claimed by the relators, and tending to show that the property was worth the sum of $60,500. The court at special term found that the actual value of the property was but $40,000. The adjudications made in 1885 and 1886 were binding and conclusive upon the parties thereto as to the value of the property in those years, and unless there was an increase in its value subsequent to those adjudications, and before the assessment in 1887, or some change affecting its assessable value, the court at special term committed no error in giving those adjudications conclusive effect between the parties. The fact that some of the assessors had received new terms of office was unimportant. The offices and the officers were the same, and we see no reason to doubt that the doctrine of res adjudicata should apply to such a case, so far as above indicated. The objection is made that the relators did not appear before the assessors on what is called the ‘grievance’ day, and ask to have the assessment corrected. But they allege in their petition that they did appear before the assessors on that day, and requested that the assessment be reduced to $40,000, as determined by the previous adjudications, and that the assessors refused to reduce the same; and this allegation in the petition is not denied or put in issue by the return, and must therefore be taken as admitted.

After the writ of certi...