Case Name: PEARSALL v. BROWER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-06-21
Citations: 105 N.Y.S. 207
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEARSALL v. BROWER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 105
Pages: 207–210

Head Matter:
(120 App. Div. 584)
PEARSALL v. BROWER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 21, 1907.)
Taxation—Extension of Taxes—Compensation of Officer.
County Law, Laws 1892, p. 1750, c. G86, § 23, authorizes each supervisor to charge one cent for each line of the tax roll actually extended by him. General Tax Law, Laws 1890, p. 795, c. 908, provides for the levying by the supervisors of only one tax in a lump sum, viz., the general tax, made up of the town, county, and state taxes. Held that, where there were three special taxes levied by the same assessment roll as the general taxes by adding thereto three additional columns and extending each line of the roll to each of the columns, there were as many extensions of a line as there were columns, and the supervisor was entitled to one cent for each extension.
Hooker and Jenks, JJ., dissenting.
Action by Smith F. Pearsall against Girdell V. Brower. Submission of controversy on an agreed statement of facts.
Judgment for defendant on the disputed items.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and RICH, JJ.
Fred Ingraham (James W. Treadwell, on the brief), for plaintiff.
Halstead Scudder, for defendant.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
The defendant, supervisor of the town of Hemp-stead, county of Nassau, charged one cent a line for extending 115,-456 lines on the town assessment rolls of 1903 and 1904, which as thus completed became the town tax rolls. By section 23 of the county law (Laws 1892, p. 1750, c. 686) each supervisor is authorized to charge "1 cent for each line of the tax roll actually extended by him." The plaintiff claims that only 45,442 lines were extended by the defendant. • This difference between them is not in the counting ,of the lines, but in respect of what a line is—or, rather, in what extending a line means. This will be understood by seeing what the actual process of casting a tax is, and what extending the line of the tax roll in respect of a tax is. If the roll exhibited only one tax, there could be only one extension of the line, i. e., it would be extended to the column of the roll in which that tax is set down. But if the roll exhibit several taxes, and therefore necessarily a separate column for each, are there not as many extensions of the line as there are such columns ? The plaintiff answers no, and the defendant yes, and I think the defendant is right. It all depends on a construction of statutes.
The general tax law (Laws 1896, p. 795, c. 908) provides for the levying by, the supervisors of only one tax in a lump sum, viz., the general tax, which is made up of the town, county, and state taxes. It (section 21) prescribes the number of columns the assessment roll shall contain, viz., eight, one of which is assigned for the setting down of the tax, and that tax the one already stated. The first column is for the names of taxable persons, the next for a description of the land, the next for its value, thé next for the value of personal property, the next for taxable rents, the next for special fran chises, the next for the amount of the tax against each person. The process of ascertaining the amount of the tax, i. e., by multiplying the assessed value by the rate, and setting it down in this column (section 55) is the extending of the line. The eighth column is for the entry of the date of payment of the tax.
But by many special statutes there are other taxes to be levied under this same process of the general tax law, viz., for local purposes. The course often is to levy them by the same assessment roll as the general taxes are levied by, although the statutes authorizing such local taxes do not always prescribe that that roll be used. Although each of them could be levied by a separate roll, that method is not always adopted. The way is to add to the general roll a separate column for each of them, thus making one composite roll, and for-the purpose of levying such a tax the line is extended to its column. The rolls in the present case have three such additional columns, viz., for road tax, board of health tax and water tax. Each line of the roll had to be and was extended to each of these columns, by ascertaining and setting down the amount of the special tax in such column. The defendant claims one cent for each of such extensions.
If these special taxes were levied on separate rolls, the defendant would be entitled to one cent for the extension of each line therefor. That they are levied on the general roll, by means of extra columns, does not alter the case. He has to extend the line for such special tax, by multiplying the value of the property of the person taxed, as set down in the appropriate column, by the rate or decimal for such special tax, and setting the result down in the column for such tax. This process is an extension of the line for that tax, and is distinct in every particular and factor from the process for extending the line for the general tax. Or, if separate lines for these special taxes had been placed on the assessment roll, there could be no question of the defendant's right to be paid for the extension of each, i. e., the ascertaining and setting' down of each of such taxes in its proper column. The compensation allowed by the statute is for every line extended. As it was, each process of ascertaining and setting down a tax in its column was an extension of a tax line—a "line of the tax roll." That the line thus extended had already been extended docs not alter the case—it was, nevertheless, a tax line, and was extended.
I think that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the submission in this particular. The parties seem to be agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in another undisputed particular.
HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and RICH, J., concur.