The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-08

that Of 1925 Of 1872 and others may state that they
do not materially these principal features Of the
under which the present case arises These are found in
the act of March &c. 1850; Of June 81 1851 amending
i; n the Revised statutes (yo !, ed, 44a, Sc,)
Visions but believe material to the present ques
tion. The act Of March 49, 1850, In it's first
twelve sections regulates merely the election ca,si
hcation, and mode of performing the duties Of
assessors The eleventh section directs that before they
proceed to property they may adopt such
70 insure the Of all real and personal estate
subject to asaton There no power to tax here given.
~ the twelfth section they exercise other powers
man those conferred by law upon them Then follow
the sections establishing and regulating the Tax Com
mssoners Tho thirteenth to the twenty sec
tons prescribe their duties and mode of action Their
duties are clearly Of supervision rectidcaon or the
the valuation IN one ward shall be fair in respect to the
valuation in other wards, and rules of similar nature
of just estimate and valuation OF the axabIs nronapt
Of The cty-not TO tax it, Then follow the sections
peryisors The twenty fifth section Is important TSs
to set down in fifth column OF the assessment rof
opposite the set down the valuations OF nro
perty, the respective to be paid tax thereon
In this sentence for the first time is tax pro oertv
declared and fixed For many years past the authority
TO raise money by tax has been given to the Supervisors
Of New York, instead Of the Mayor, Aldermen, &C. In
series Of such acts it is to the Mayor Aldermen &c.
Supervisors The of 1882 may be taken as an exam
pie. 1t deserves notice, that the law authorizing the
tax part Of which is laid on the plaintiffs not
PASSED by the legislature until the 10Th Of April 1883
peted, and the roll delivered by the LIST Of April,
1858. This the case with many other of the
annual tax bills; they took effect after the
ment must by law have been perfected The language
Of the tax act Of 1852 is almost identical with that OF
vsors are as soon as Convenient after the
passage OF the act to order and to be raised by tax
uns rec ana sSsss
the act Of assessment is not act of taxation. Tho
POWER to tax did not exist 1t makes the assessment
what IN ITS nature It really isa preparatory vauationo Of
property with view to taxation and nothing more.
Nor can the more ministerial Office Of Tax Commits
soners in revising and adjusting the Valuations with
render them the taxing power When then, was the tax
imposed When did the company become subjected to
Not from the date Of the law that only de-
legated power to the Supervisors to tax Not from the
asessmenta proposition think, very cIear-nor from
tie of the Tax It could then only be
fixed upon the properly tax when the Supervisors
had entered the in the column the roll as pre-
scribed If this is then il appears to that the act
of the Legislature in force two days before this IMPOSE
tion made legislative reduction of the amount
institutions from taxation exists the power to reduce
the amount must follow If the tax not in fact i'm
Is anything retrospective in it. IT is markedly isrsla
tive declaration that although tho property has been
valued by certain municipal agents at $4,000 it shall
merely this When was this corporation taxeds
If on the Goth Of July 1853, and not before the
law had pronounced that 1t should be taxed upon
a valuation Of 100000 and upon other The
next point raised by the demurrer denial Of the urs
ction Of the court 1t is insisted that this court can
not by Injunction interfere in the proceedings taken un
der the decision of subordinate tribunal acting under
statute and clothed with the exercise oocal powers
An opinion Of Mr. Justice Duer in the Of Douglas
Tie Mayor &c. has been laid before me. The facts Of
the stated apparently hostile the
Jurisdiction Justice Roosevelt whose long practical
percnce and learning upon this subject, give great
weight even to special term opinion tret the Bureau Of
Assessment exercising quasi judicial power and be-
Mayor Sc s The
plant there dismissed, and preliminary injunction
dissolved The case was one however Of gross neglect
OF the opportunities to make objections provided the
law. Justice Emmett also in the of the Trustees Of
the New York Society Library The Mayor &c. refused
restrain the enforcement of payment Of taxes assessed
upon the property Of the plaintiffs He expressed the
opinion that the property was exempt but decided the
upon the Of the Mayor Of Brooklyn Mese
role go Wendel,) and Van Dorer the Mayor, 70
Paige cited also by Justice Duer in the before
mentioned II is diffcut perhaps impossible to resist
these authorities and II there was nothing in the Code to
excuse me from an implicit submission to them, should
allow the demurrer Mt But the very system does
exist upon the question The same court now i'd
ministers the law upon all the united principles Of
equity and law. II this case was before me upon
action to back the money paid
under legal compulsion, or upon an action against
officer for seizng property upon to enforce
Cd The Judges ut the General Term, they agreed In
he opinion to the law, would order such repayment
1t does difficult 10 reconcile 1t to common sense to
say why the party aggrievsd by error in law may
not in the court the same facts, be protected
from pay ing money well entitled to It when
and Il n 70 S
view The view of Justice Edmonds In Cure VS.. Craw
ford, Code, R. 49, favors it. It Is question not
fully decided by the judgment of the General Term Of
this Court by that any higher authority as pre-
clude me from acting upon an inclination of opinion,
be sustained shall Le glad If the subject is brought
before the General Term for deliberate consideration
which may govern ourselves at least upon point Of
demurrer win be overruled, and Judgment entered for
the plaintiffs, without costs.