Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company, Respondent, v. The State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-11
Citations: 55 A.D. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company, Respondent, v. The State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 186–190

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Buffalo Natural Gas Fuel Company, Respondent, v. The State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellant.
Certiorari to review an assessment under the Special Franchise Tax Act — the statute defines the “manner,” “method” and “basis” of the return.
A provision in a writ of certiorari issued to review an assessment for taxation, that the return shall include “the manner of making the same (the assessment), the method pursued by you in making and fixing a valuation upon such special franchise of the petitioner in said city of Buffalo, with the basis adopted by you for such valuation thereof,” is unauthorized and should be stricken out.
If the return does not comply with section 353 of the Tax Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 908), requiring it to “ set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed "on the roll and the grounds for the valuation made by the assessing officers,” it should be sent back for correction. If the writ requires more than the statute calls for it is to that extent unauthorized.
Kellogg, J.,' dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, The State Board of Tax Commissioners, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the. county of Albany on the 3d day of July, 1900, as provides: “ Ordered, that the motion to strike from the writ the words including the manner of making the same,, the method pursued by yon in making and fixing a valuation upon such special franchise of the petitioner in said city of Buffalo, with the basis adopted by you for such valuation thereof,’ be and is hereby denied.”
John O. Davies, Attorney-General, and Henry B. Coman, Deputy Attorney-General, for the appellant.
Lewis H. Carr and D. B. Hill, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
By section 252 of the Tax Law (Chap. 908, Laws of 1896) the return of the assessors " must concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed on the roll and the grounds for the valuation made by the assessing officers." Mot only, therefore, must the assessors return the facts " pertinent and material to show the value of the property ; " they are further to return " the grounds for the valuation." The wisdom of this statutory requirement is not for our consideration.
By the writ the assessors are required to return " the manner of making the same (the assessment), the method pursued by you in making and fixing a valuation upon such special franchise of the petitioner in said city of Buffalo, with the basis adopted by you for such valuation thereof." The vice in this -provision of the writ would seem to lie in its ambiguity. It is not clear what is meant by " manner," " method " and " basis." If it be construed to require more than is required by statute, it is unauthorized and calls for a return which would only incumber the record. If it be construed, however, to require no more, it is then unnecessary. It seems to have been held in the first department that the assessors could not be required to return the method by which they arrived at their conclusion. (People ex rel. Heiser v. Gilon, 51 N. Y. St. Repr. 825.)
In my judgment the form of the writ would serve to confuse rather than to enlighten the assessors in making return to the writ. The assessors are already directed by the statute. If the return do not accord with that direction it may be returned for correction. The matter complained of should be stricken from the writ.
All concurred, except Kellogg-, J., dissenting in an opinion.