Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People ex rel. Samuel Marsh, Jr., Appellants, v. Michael Delaney et al., Assessors, etc., Respondents, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 655 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People ex rel. Samuel Marsh, Jr., Appellants, v. Michael Delaney et al., Assessors, etc., Respondents
49 N.Y. 655·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People ex rel. Samuel Marsh, Jr., Appellants, v. Michael Delaney et al., Assessors, etc., Respondents.
(Argued March 1, 1872;
decided April 2, 1872.)
A departure by assessors from the standard fixed by statute for estimating the value of property placed upon the assessment roll cannot be corrected upon certiorari, nor can their failure to assess the property of a corporation, as required, be so corrected. The court may reverse the assessment as made, and direct a reassessment; but after the roll has been delivered to the board of supervisors and the power of the assessors over it has ceased, a c&rtiorm'i should not be allowed; and if allowed, should be quashed even after return made.
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, quashing a writ of certiorari issued to .defendants as assessors of the town of Southfield, Richmond county. The relatorj a tax-payer of the town of Southfield, obtained the writ upon the ground that defendants had omitted to make the proper entries required by the Revised Statutes (as amended, Laws of 1853, chap. 654; Laws of 1857, chap. 456) in respect to the Richmond County Gas-light Company, and had undervalued its property $226,600. It appeared that prior to the issuing of the writ, the defendants had completed their roll and it had been delivered to the board of supervisors.
Wm. Henry Anthon for the appellants.
Geo. J. Greenfield for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Gboveb, J.,]
Gboveb, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance. All concur.
Order affirmed, without costs.