
    The People ex rel. Edmund G. Hutchinson et al., as Trustees of the First Congregational Church of the Village of Phœnix, App’lts, v. John O’Brien et al., as Assessors of the Village of Phœnix, Resp’ts.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
    
    
      Filed July 20, 1889.)
    
    1. Taxes—Parsonage is not exempt from taxation.
    The lot upon which a church parsonage stands is not exempt from taxation.
    2. Same—Description of property.
    An assessment against the church trustees, describing the property as-“parsonage” and giving the valuation, is sufficient, although the quantity of land is not given.
    Appeal from an order of the Onondaga Special Term, September, 1888, affirming an assessment against the relators and dismissing a writ of certiorari, obtained under the provisions of. chapter 269 of the Laws of 1880, to review an assessment upon certain real property belonging to the First Congregational church of the village of Phoenix, known as the parsonage.
    The facts, as stated in the opinion below, are as follows: The relators are the trustees of a religious corporation which owns a parcel of land, situate in the village of Phoenix, 132. feet wide on Bridge street and 150 feet deep on Jefferson street. At the time the assessment in question was made,, there stood upon the said lot, fronting on Bridge street, a. brick church used by said society exclusively for public worship; and also fronting on the same street, and separated from said church by “ a narrow space,” a wooden building, erected and used by said association exclusively for a parsonage, and occupied by the pastor of said church as a dwelling house.
    The pastor receives an annual salary, the parsonage being furnished for his use by the society. Upon the rear of said lot are “sheds for horses, and a barn erected and used for the accommodation and comfort of the teams and horses of those who may attend public worship at said church.” The greater portion of the entire parcel of land» is covered by the erections aforesaid.
    
      Avery & Merry, for app’lts; C. M. Reilly, for resp’ts.
    
      
       Affirming 18 N. Y. State Rep., 125.
    
   Merwin, J.

Two propositions are presented by the appellant: First, that the lot upon which the building denominated a parsonage stands is exempt from taxation under subdivision 3 of section 4 of title 1, chapter 13, part 1, of the Revised Statutes, as amended by chapter 397 of Laws 1883; second, that the assessment is void for not containing a description nor giving the quantity of land to be taxed.

The first proposition is fully discussed by Mr. Justice Vann, in the opinion delivered by him at special term upon making the order appealed from. There is no occasion for any further discussion of the subject. We agree with him. in his view that the parsonage was not exempt.

The second proposition does not seem to have been raised at special term. It is not stated in the writ of certiorari as , a ground for relief, nor does it appear to have been raised ' before the assessors, although, upon grievance day, the relators appeared before them and asked for relief on the other ground. ' It is, however, stated in the petition upon which the writ was granted. The assessment was against “Trustees' First Congregational Church,” the property assessed was described “parsonage,” and the valuation was entered “$1,600.” The description did not mislead the relators. . Tallman v. White, 2 N. Y., 66.

There was no doubt about the identity. Presumptively, it was so much of the lot as was covered by the parsonage. It was understood to be a real estate assessment, so alleged in substance in the petition. The absence of a statement of the quantity, if important under a charter of the village (chap. 639 of Laws of 1868, as amended by chap. 257 of 1888, title 4, § 6), is not a source of any injury to the relators.

As said in People ex rel. D. and H. C. Co. v. Parker (45 Hun, 432; 12 N. Y. State Rep., 448), injury must be shown or the alleged illegality will be unavailing under the act of 1880. No question is made about the valuation. We think there is nothing in the form of the assessment that presents-here any good ground for disturbing the order.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Hardin,' P. J., and Martin, J., concur.  