The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-01

Supreme Court special Term.
Before Judge Roosevelt
QUESTION OF ASSESSMENTS UNDgR THI LAW FOR
PAVING AND REGULATING sraKErs.
VA sas I q. q T1s.ng =, re Mayor, a. Nao
be sustainet IL mutt be In violation OF fund smsntk
rule that he who asks equity shall do equity The plain
district Of the sy-ous at the corner Of sIn vsnus
and Forty ninth street and the other ct the
OF Tenth avenue and Eshtsth street. and AL full avenue
lots For regulating Forty ninth street. hundrea feet
Of which val opposite to his premises his nrst lot
assesssd sles s aod for regulating Tenth Avsaus
tn. aggregate sl8s 60 The pantn docs not deny thu
the work DONE and well DONE does he aeye that
II cost less or was less beneficial to him. than the sums
sasessed; and yet technical grouud, without
offering TO pay anything he asks this court Ia the
eciss OF Its equity Jurisdiction to grant him perpetual
Injunction against the collection of tho entire asssss
nents thus Ia eot securing the whole benefit Of the
work to him, and ing It's Who'll, cost upon others
This certainly H. novel, equity And the grounds
on which It ress 1t seems to equally novel By the
STATE iaw, relating particularly to the city Of New York.
the business Of pitching paving grading sswsring,
than forty years been conf 10 to the They
were authorized, also, without the Intervention Of tn
any other court to cause estimates to be made Of tho
eIpsnfe and Of its proper assessment among the
benefited In portion nearly possible, TO the I'D
vantage received and for that purpose appoiat such
skful and com psent dsnerested parsons they might
think proper to make such estimates and asssssmsns.
All this In the present case 1t Ii admitted done.
But BY An aci passed. ~ conceive, (sithough myself
foresight Of Its since developed Lc
gslAturs in 1910 declared that no assessment in any
lued by the OF the ward Now these ward
iuatons 1t the periods in queston the public legsa
tive history OF the State shows notorousy and In
many Cases. to the extent OF two thirds under the auAl
selling prices Of tbs day. These very lots furnish Illus
traten. In lS50-so the complaint admits and Al
esss-the Sixth avenue lot ana tina. full lot
higher up than Forty ninth street. was valued by thu
ward officers ~ $780, and the two Tenth lots OF
full size and one of them on the corner OF Eghtieth
nnfa lint hnh lin
ti stronger possible, may be found Ia tas OF the
Second avenue, where worthless nsarly worthless
swamp lots were by the Improvement raised in vslue 70
thsn $500 each, and thsir previous worth ess
nffs WAS under this lact, urged . why they
Shout be assessed comparatively lingo more proper
~ speaking only balfcf nothng-.hus for that
tbs of the operation aidpg houses certain
favored lots and paying Tor them BY taxation
others make thete with the view OF ia
dicisy defeating The act unless far it may cont
with tho constitution but " the purpose rst Of cang
the attention OF the Legislature to its practical ration
and secondly In order TO apply the vel estA5she Ius
that being statute IN derogation las the result has
showp) Of co nmon right its provisions wherever doubt
ful are 10 BE- Construed strictly In this view tben of
the ,acs the Question Ia, how Its privileges to be
awaited OFF Must the parties In whose favor they
creates set them up by OF dfsncs ~ the proper
time or must the officers charged with the duty Of ap
portionment, OF their Accord 60 ia search OF tue
evidence and take notice Of the fact of tn. ysua
tops, st cir perif ontty ssys-and tho position s sus-
tApsd by good And inn umersble autnotes-that
matters OF exception, rhsn contained 10 subsequsat
clause" OF the same statute, and fofiUi when in .
which devoNes upon the party to SHOW IL he would
claim on exemption even sySnst penalty (Cnitty,
12s Nov the Bureau Of Assessments as called 10
cost OF paving, regulating, &; 1t exercises quasi judi
oa power I'D on this is OF court OF sps
cai jurisdiction It's msmbsrs ike ether judicial Off
GERS, to make "ths raid estimate and assess.
men. fairly and iuparta, ascordiog to the bsst of
1 their S.s a0s sns
aot expresses it, and SO certihsd to ths Common
Council tn.t tn, plaintiff, ~, r1srns BY tns .ors
which had bseu dore wss benefited to the extent Of the
sums specified He made no objection to the Bureau
and mons 70 the Beardnone, st least pretsnded-but
on the contrsiy he liety permitted the dongs Of tbs
though he khew-for the law Informed him-that
whom so ratified, they would be binding and usive
upon him, well ali other owners Hs offers no ex-
the omission and makes no suggsstIon OF fraud
accident or mistake IS ground OF equitable relief TIE
Common Council he admits, had Jurisdiction but they
court t. rSi'w that collssraly and In favor
too Of parry who, although notiasd omitted to make
oo nos. fna ySoss
IN It's compo,itions And what s the er,r complained
OIL That ,hs CORPORATE b its officers sssed him too
Assessed him had they kno the low valuations Of the
ward officers. Has he applied to the Comm Council to
the .ssaameni hs dses not pretend that he has
bat comes directly 10 this court not by appeal to
correct the alleged error it De one but In the form Of
An dependent collateral suit to aunul ths entire adg
spt seems 70 ms too clear for argument that the
Judgment OF the Common Council sexe the lsw express.
y declares IL shall be- conclusive for any purpose or
On any quslon ~ must be 60 On the mere Question u
show much" and especially as asaiast . party vho
when noftd to present his objections IL he hal any
presented none put allowed Judgment to pass against
him BY default To test the principle OF che plsoin's
case, suppose an action In Ju ce's court In which
the defend ant therein night have part payment
usury, the statute OF hnits.iops, but did not ap
pear The judgment against him. although 70; the
Whole amount he Ell oined BY this gouads such
81 those suggested in this ccmpiAntf And not whers
Is the diheIeacs Of pnoipe between the assssf rns
common law dc sares that shall be sued for .
debt after he has paid and the statutes equally declare
that no action shall At tia be brought
dernat d. srd nore . valid demand, uness within six
yeart and yet the Jusc 30 judgment in Shk would
neTethslesa be 'coDclusivs rs the status dssares
the judgment. Of the Common Couuc shall he In tnis.
The business Of the Supreme Court IN this district OF the
State, its proper and necessary 5usnels is already
sufficiently ahsming, without croAching upon
functions which the Legislature has very Justly conadsA
to special tribunals OF more limited jar,dc'icn sui
whsn o; those tribunal in mater over which 1t
ooniessedly had jurisdi,t has renisred jidysnt
which the Legislature has declared shall bs bindinR
and conclusive" an not disposed lightly treat such
Judgment 80 nullity, especially when the only effect
win be to enAbe person to bars his property I'm
proved at the ex pence o. his neishbor.
Complaint dismissed with costs, and preliminary In.
junction dissolved.