People ex rel. Douglas v. Van Nostrand
PEOPLE ex rel. DOUGLAS v. VAN NOSTRAND, Supervisor
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BARNARD, P. J.
The relator for some six years has been assessed for his lands in the town of Flushing, lying on Little Neck bay, and consisting of about 175 acres of land, at the sum of $42,-750. In 1891 the assessors raised the value as a basis of assessment to $60,000. This writ is brought to reduce the assessment on the ground that the assessment is unequal, and proportionately higher than that on other real estate in the town. The relator’s witnesses testify that the value of. the property is from $80,000 to $105,000. The defendants produce evidence that the value is $175,000, possibly $200,000. The proof shows that the property has risen in value 50 per cent, between the assessment of 1890 and the one complained of in 1891. The relator selected certain parcels of land on the assessor’s books as a basis for the allegation of irregularity. The proof shows that these pieces are assessed higher in proportion to the values than the property of relator is. The proof entirely fails to show any reason for the reduction of the assessment. The order dismissing the writ should therefore be affirmed, with $10 costs, besides disbursements.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.