Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, as President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1913. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1914
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11
Citations: 171 A.D. 925
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, as President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1913. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1914.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, as President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1913. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sanborn Map Company, Respondent, v. Peter Ceder, President, and Others, as Trustees of the Village of North Pelham, in the County of Westchester, and Another, Respondents, Appellants. Assessment of 1914.

Opinion:
Judgment reversed, and a new hearing ordered at the Westchester Special Term, with or without a referee as the court there may determine, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the finding of fact that the assessment of $135,000 constituted an over-valuation, is against the greater weight of the evidence; and it is suggested that the court at Special Term, in its decision to be made, find exactly the real value of the property and the average ratio of assessment to real value upon the roll. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.