Warren v. Carter
| Decision Date | 05 June 1888 |
| Citation | 17 N.E. 222,109 N.Y. 576 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. WARREN et al. v. CARTER et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from general term, supreme court, Third department.
This is an appeal from the order of the general term of the third department, affirming an order of the special term reducing assessments on the real property of the relators, made in certiorari proceedings under chapter 269, Laws 1880. The relators were assessed for the year 1886 in the city of Troy, upon three parcels of land,-one parcel, known as ‘River View,’ containing 30 acres, which was assessed at $60,500; lot 194, on the west side of Third street, on which were two houses, numbered 47 and 49, assessed at $29,000; and a third parcel, containing 10 acres, which was assessed at $12,000, but which latter assessment is not now in controversy. The relators, within 15 days after the completion of the assessment roll, and its delivery to the comptroller, procured a writ of certiorari to be issued under the act of 1880, directed to the assessors of the city and to the comptroller, upon a petition alleging, in substance, that the said several assessments were erroneous by reason of overvaluation and inequality. In support of the allegation of inequality, the petition sets forth that the lands of the relator were no more valuable than lands in close proximity thereto, while the assessment thereof was largely in excess of the assessment of such other lands. The allegation of overvaluation or inequality set forth in the petition, and incorporated in the writ issued thereunder, were fully denied in the return made to the writ; and the court, on the matter coming before it, appointed a referee to take the proofs, and, on the coming in of his report, the court decided that the assessment of the ‘River View’ property was erroneous for overvaluation in the sum of $20,500, and reduced the amount from $60,500 to $40,000. The court also decided that the assessment of ‘lot 194, and houses 47 and 49, west side Third street,’ assessed at $29,000, was unequal, ‘in that it had been made at a higher proportionate valuation than other real property on the same roll in immediate proximity thereto.’ and that the assessment on lot 194 should be reduced $3,900, to make it proportionately equal to the assessment on the lots immediately adjoining. There was proof to sustain the finding of overvaluation in respect to the ‘River View’ property. The only evidence to sustain the finding of inequality in the assessment of lot 194 was that the assessment of lot 193, adjoining, was relatively lower than the assessment on lot 194, and the court found that the inequality amounted to the sum of $3,900. The defendants appeal from the order of the general term affirming the order of the special term.
R. A. Parmenter, for appellants.
Geo. B. Wellington, for appellees.
ANDREWS, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)
All real and personal estate in this state, not specially exempted, is by law liable to taxation upon an assessment at its full value. The tax laws proceed upon the theory that all property protected by law should bear its equal share of the burden of taxation, and the statutory system, if exactly administered according to the letter of the statutes, would result in perfect equality of benefit and burden, and none would have any just ground of complaint. But no system of taxation has as yet been devised which is capable of complete and perfect administration. The ascertainment and valuation of property liable to taxation is, under our system, committed to a board of assessors. In discharging their functions, mistakes or errors are liable to be committed which prevent a perfect execution of the system of assessment. It is known that a large amount of personal property escapes taxation, either from the negligence of assessors, or because its existence cannot be ascertained. So, also, property may be listed which is not liable to assessment, or the assessors, from mistake, inadvertence, or misjudgment, may place an erroneous valuation on property, either more or less than its actual value, thereby producing inequality of taxation. The act of 1880 deals with the subject of assessments in these aspects, viz., in respect to illegality, overvaluation, and inequality of valuation, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
...to afford aggrieved taxpayers their due process right to challenge tax assessments on their real property (cf. People ex rel. Warren v. Carter, 109 N.Y. 576, 17 N.E. 222). Nevertheless, the aggrieved are required to pay the tax on pain of sale of their property by the sovereign (see Real Pr......
-
Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
...as to the relative valuation of his property and that of another, to have his assessment reduced . . . ." (People ex rel. Warren v. Carter, 109 N.Y. 576, 581-582, 17 N.E. 222, 224). (Emphasis In the face of the foregoing pronouncements, the court here cannot find there has been a systematic......
-
Johnson v. Town of Haverstraw
...payment of more than his just proportion of the aggregate tax. That is the rationale underlying our decision in People ex rel. Warren v. Carter, supra, 109 N.Y. 576, 17 N.E. 222, and that is the reason why proof of inequality may be established only by showing that the assessment has been m......
-
Johnson v. Town of Haverstraw
...be applied retroactively to litigants who have a constitutionally vested right to a refund of excess tax payments. People ex rel. Warren v. Carter, 109 N.Y. 576, 17 N.E. 222; Slewett and Farber v. Board of Assessors, 97 Misc.2d 637, 651, 412 N.Y.S.2d 292, 302. (See also, Matter of Furey v. ......