People Ex Rel. Washington Building Co. v. Feitner

57 N.E. 624, 163 N.Y. 384, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1076
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 12, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 57 N.E. 624 (People Ex Rel. Washington Building Co. v. Feitner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Washington Building Co. v. Feitner, 57 N.E. 624, 163 N.Y. 384, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1076 (N.Y. 1900).

Opinions

Parker, Ch. J.

We agree with the courts below that the last sentence of section 250 of chapter 908 of the Laws of 1896, which provides that “ Two or more persons assessed *386 upon the same roll who are affected in the same manner by the alleged illegality, error or inequality, may unite in the same petition,” was intended to apply to a situation wherein the adjudication upon the complaint of one taxpayer necessarily determines the complaints of others, as, where in reality but a single issue is presented, so that the law being settled as to the facts of one case it is alike applicable to all other cases, but was not intended to permit any and all parties to unite who are aggrieved because of their local assessments. The statute was not, for instance, intended to countenance such an absurdity as uniting as relators in proceedings to review assessments the Brooklyn Rapid Transit railroad, with its several hundred miles of surface and elevated railroads in the borough of Brooklyn, the Metropolitan Traction Company, with its various owned and leased lines in the borough of Manhattan, and the Union Railway Company in the borough of the Bronx, necessitating upon the trial an examination of facts touching the value of the properties of each company as distinguished from the others and involving, therefore, different issues.

Our conclusion is that the courts below rightly decided the question presented and we approve of the reasoning which led to their determination.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blank v. Becker
50 A.D.2d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
River Troy Realties, Inc. v. Commissioner of Assessment & Taxation
33 Misc. 2d 115 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Lome v. Tax Commission
11 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Allen v. Rizzardi
158 N.E.2d 813 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
Heller v. Rose
5 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
People ex rel. Michael J. Adrian Corp. v. Sexton
251 A.D. 181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
People ex rel. American Sugar Refining Co. v. Sexton
249 A.D. 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
People Ex Rel. Litchfield v. . Wells
187 N.Y. 536 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)
People Ex Rel. Litchfield v. . O'Donnel
80 N.E. 1117 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)
People ex rel. Litchfield v. O'Donnel
113 A.D. 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)
People Ex Rel. Zollikoffer v. . Feitner
64 N.E. 945 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
People ex rel. Zollikoffer v. Feitner
74 A.D. 130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
People Ex Rel. Thomson v. . Feitner
61 N.E. 763 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
People Ex Rel. Washington Building Company v. . Feitner
58 N.E. 1088 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
People ex rel. Washington Building Co. v. Feitner
164 N.Y. 579 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 N.E. 624, 163 N.Y. 384, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-washington-building-co-v-feitner-ny-1900.