Case Name: Wallerstein v. Bohanna et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-18
Citations: 5 N.Y.S. 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wallerstein v. Bohanna et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 5
Pages: 319–319

Head Matter:
Wallerstein v. Bohanna et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 18, 1889.)
•Constitutional Law—Delegation of Legislative Powers—Taxation.
Laws ET. Y. 1883, c. 114, conferring on the board of assessors of the city of Brooklyn, such board being a city agency in respect to taxation, power and authority to determine what proportion of the taxes, assessments, etc., assessed on any lands in that city prior to July 1, 1883, and in arrear, should be justly and fairly charged against and presently collected from said lands, and making such determination a valid tax and lien thereon, is constitutional. The arrear, thus ascertained, not being a new tax, but an abatement of the old, the objection that the legislature cannot delegate the power of taxation within an -incorporated city to a commission newly created by itself, is irrelevant. Following Terrill v. Wheeler, 3 $T. Y. Supp. 86.
Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
For an abstract of the statute in question, see Terrill v. Wheeler, 2 H. Y. Supp. 86.
A. H. & W. E. Osborn, for appellants. Ira Leo Bamberger, for respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
This is an action of ejectment, the plaintiff claiming the title to property in the city of Brooklyn under a sale made by the registrar of arrears, under chapter 114 of the Laws of 1883, and the acts amendatory thereof. The contention of the defendants is that the sale was void by reason of the unconstitutionality of said acts. This precise question has been twice decided by this court at general term—first, in the case of Terrill v. Wheeler, 2 N. Y. Supp. 86, and again in case of Kelly v. Wheeler, 3 N. Y. Supp. 289; and it seems unnecessary to again write an opinion, as no new points are suggested requiring examination; in fact, the same brief in part is used by the appellant that was submitted in the case of Kelly v Wheeler. The opinion at general term in the case of Terrill v. Wheeler seems to cover every point raised upon this appeal, and the decision in that case is decisive of this. Judgment is therefore affirmed upon the above-mentioned opinion.