The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-20

Sapcsrtsoys of A< Guy ana tommy ~ Nc1 fofR-9kftH
nj, y--Issae Adriance moves for mandamus against
tho Supervisors Of the County OF New York TO require
them to remit much of the tax his real estate in
John street Ia levied the increased valuation OF
said property by the tax commissioners beyond the val
uston BY the assefsors and also to remit the tax
any valuation Of his property the Third and Fourth
and between Fifty eighth and Pity ninth streets
beyond the value to y him The John street
property belongs to Mrs. Adriaace, and valued by
the for 1853 at s22 0co The commission
raised the valuation to s2s 0oo and when applied
to to restore It to the former valuation refused do
Mr. Adriance applied to this court compel the tax
commissioners to restore the valuation, aud ii
fused the ground that the control Of the books had
psSsed from the commissioners. He then applied
to the supervisors to correct the valuation, and
they refused The block on the avenues valued
By the assessors mt S3 o Adrance appeared before
the Commissioners and made affidavit that II Was
In fact worth no more than SUI oo. That amdart
was retained the ssoners but they refused to
adopt 1T a. correct valuation. O her lands belonging
to him valued by the assessors at certain sums
and the vaua ton increased by the tax commissioners
Mr. Adrance applied 10 the supervisors to correct all
these alleged irregularities, and they refused
The question ia these is whether mandamus
is the proper remedy in such cass In the People
rel Philip Church against the Supervisors OF Allegheny,
10 Wend lsS, certiorar refused because the writ
in the discretion OF the COURT and the objections
made TO the assessments II valid were such AZ
affected the REALTORS interest alone but in pria
the hst that the complaint not that the reator
had been required to pay titan his just proportion
"t the county burdens out that in consequence OF the
allowance of Illegal charges his tai, in with
hat Of every other person named 10 the rolls
lad been improperly Increased" 90 Wend, Z041
aere the relator applies groprds peculiar to himself
md hia application for certiorar, which, by
ringing up all lbe proceedings, might stay the coilec
ion of all lakes hut for a mandamus, which wouid IL
Ne is correct make legal in amount and
orn, win h is illegal in both respects. In Hull
Supervisors Of Oneida county, 1871 X asurSeon who
fnan pI aula
IL The to compel them 10 audit and allow his
account the manaamus refused on the merits, on
the ground that the services were gratuous But the
court held that IL the proper remedy but for that
obiection and that g when the inferior tribunal has
discretion proceeds to exercise H. this court has
jurisdiction 10 contr,l that discretion by mandamus;'
but that the subori ate public agents refuse to act
to entertain the question for their discretion in
where tt law en"ns them 70 do the act required 1t
is the office of the to enforce Obedience to the law
by mandafnus In where other legal remedy
lists (p 262) and the court held that 4 the claim
legal there no doubt of their jurisdiction in
and guide the supervisors in the execution OF their
duty by msndamus not TO control their discretion In
Judging what Is reasonable compensation for such
vices but to compel them them to admit the claim
county charge and to exercise their discretion TO the
amount" D. 263 (See also the distinction in
HiIl S62-T; People rel Phoenix Supervisors of
New York; Oh. j. Spencer had said before in IL j. R.
AIS, People rel Wilson Supervisors Of Albany
that 1 the Office OF writ OF mandamus is to require
the persons whom it is directed TO do particular
thing, which appertains TO their oioe and duty, and
which the court issuing it snppoes to be consonant to
right and JUSTICE and that ii the party making the
application has a legal right, and other specific
legal remedy the writ generally goes" The latter
part of this opinion ia to be understood in connection
with the prior as applying only to matters appertaning
OF chsnsnso o county s @ the count Granted the
writ to compel the supervisors " aadt and xov the
account Of the clerk Of the county for books purchased
the court holding that they proper county chsges
but not passing the value Of the books The bank Of
to compel the city to remit tax on the surplus funds
Of tho bank beyond its fixed capital. The relief
granted a. the objection that the remedy was at law,
ter OF the city of Utica 70 the council Of
that city the exclusive control and direction to the
and collection of the city taxes he thought
the csmplabans had perfect remedy at law by ap
plicetion to tho Supreme Court for mandamus to
pei the common council to their and
taxation Of the property OF the bank II 1t Illegal
but that the remedy would be much more imperfect and
doubtful in tho of ordinary town and county tax
ghen the assessment is made by body and the tax
mpos ed by another; especially ii the illegalty did
ot appear upon the face Of the assessment roll In
he People the Mayor Of New York 10 Wend.
1917, the court the merits refused the relief but
acid that mandamus the proper remedy
compel the Corporation 70 execute Ss. .ss on
might be had in equity by indictment In that case
an action for damages would equally have laid Nelson,
(Chief Justce) that whenever legal right exists,
the party entitled to legal remedy and when all
others faii the aid of this may be invoked But that
case and the others before referred to- show although
they do not 40 DECLARE that where specific duty inn
posed by statute public officers or bodies they may
be compelled TO execute i BY mandsmus although an
propretors in the city of Albany the Com proer Of
the State, as wcnd t59,) mandamus granted to
him for the State and which the pier proprietors
entitled to receive from him. unless the State could hold
them q sci of to another clathe court holding the
claim OF the State to set off was bad In Onaerdonk
vs. the Supervisors Of Queens county, q Kill, 1857 tbs
allegation OF the reator that the town auditors had
improperly allowed a certain charge against
the Of North Hempsead and the Board Of Sapervi
OF the county then directed that sum to be levied
upon the town. and the warrant for that purpose
iagrA To col
rar mandamus prohibition could issue to the collec
tor a. he Was mere ministerial ocer that the ceruo
bring up only such proceedings as still remained
before them, and could not remove the warrant
supervisors had before them the certificate in
due form Of the auditing Of the town accounts,
Whether the accounts had been in fact properly au
ded not and the court compared this to the Of
the people the relation of Church against the Super
visors Of Aliegany. In people rel. the Bank of
watcrtown, Hill 616 the court held that banking
sociatons taxable incorporated banks their
capital; the question raised maudamus, but mo-
point made whether that the proper remedy
not in people rel, Mem sister and Harvey, super
vsors Of niagara, Hill 20, the Assessors had assessed
two banking associations and railroad company, and
the supervisors of the county struck out the names OF
all three Of the companies from the assessment roll The
court granted peremptory mandamus to compel the
supervisors restore those In the Ontario Bank
vs. Buunei tho court held that II certain capital of
bank taxable, the bank shond have applied TO
the proper officers to reduce the amount and the court
said that il the relief was i'm properly granted there was
appropriate remedy" GO Wend. 1881 This seems
imply peculiar remedy, not the common remedy by
action Of trcspass. These cases decide that the
supervisors OF a county are not 70 be controis-
ed az TO the amount to be allowed by them
for services chargeable the county, when
they are Judge Of the value OF the services but that
IL there be a chargeabe against the county and
they reject IL Illegal aud 1t is legal they will be COM
eled by mandamus to asmit the claim and TO decide
payable under it. and the general principle
ay be stated that where specific duty ia imposed
aerr or other pubic officers, by statute, and they
not conform TO the statute, and the omis.
ION To- conform affects particular party only and not
he whole assessment list, manaamus viii issue 70
ompe them, IT, in the before the court. the
sapryisors had no right by order the coec
ton Of taxes according TO valuation imposed by the
Tax Commissioners, when the assessors hal imposed
smaller valuation, or to impose the collection the
valuation Of the when the party made SUCH
affidavit as was made here, then they have violated the
statute should be madc to conform TO it, unless the
application IL too late Where q specific duty Is enoin
ed by STATUTE IL is made specific, because the public
interest that 1t should executed In that