Case Name: The People ex rel. The Equitable Gas Light Company of New York, Respondent, v. Edward P. Barker et al., as Commissioners, etc., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-12-04
Citations: 144 N.Y. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. The Equitable Gas Light Company of New York, Respondent, v. Edward P. Barker et al., as Commissioners, etc., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. The Equitable Gas Light Company of New York, Respondent, v. Edward P. Barker et al., as Commissioners, etc., Appellants.
(Argued November 26, 1894;
decided December 4, 1894.)
Appeal from- order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made April 24, 1894, which affirmed an order of Special Term, which set aside an assessment of the relator’s capital for taxation for the year 1892.
The following is the opinion in full:
“Very important facts are wanting in this case, which appear in the case between the same parties in the proceeding to review the assessment of 1893. In this case the statement submitted to the commissioners did not show the earnings of the company for the year preceding the assessment, nor does the return nor the proof show that any facts Avere considered by the commissioners outside of those stated in the return. Mor .does the return show the principle or grounds upon which the commissioners proceeded in reaching the assessment. There is nothing from which the court can find that the gross assets Avere of greater value than claimed by the petitioners in their statement. The statement contains an item, “ surplus earnings, $44,799.05,” accompanied with no explanation. The commissioners seem to have acted in fixing the assessment exclusively upon the statement of the relator. They did not impugn any of the facts therein stated, and assuming those facts to he true, and that the commis sioners acted solely thereon, we think the order below was right and it should, therefore, be affirmed, but without costs.”
D. J. Dean for appellants.
Frederic R. Ooudert for respondent.
Ante, page 94.

Opinion:
Per Gwria/m
opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Order affirmed.