
    The People ex rel James Eckerson et al., Resp’ts, v. Edward W. Christie et al., App’lts.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed June 11, 1889.)
    
    1. Taxation — Assessments—On proceedi to reduce as unequal — Power oe court confined to what—Laws 1880, chap. 069.
    On appeal from a judgment rendered in a proceeding to reduce an assessment as unequal, taken pursuant to Laws 1880, chapter 069, Held, that the court will not review the findings of fact which determined the inequality of the relator’s assessment when compared with that of other property of the town, but will only inquire whether there was legal evidence tending to that conclusion, and whether any errors of law affected the ultimate decision.
    
      2. Same — Pbesumption as to pbopbbty befbesenting fbopobtionatb BATE OE ASSESSMENT.
    It will "be presumed that the properties selected out from the assessment, roll, by mutual agreement, and used without objection, as the basis of comparison, did fairly represent the proportionate rate of assessment of the property of the town, and so serve as a correct basis for comparison.
    Appeal from a judgment of supreme court, general term, second department, affirming, as modified, a judgment entered on a decision rendered at special term, reducing an assessment, as unequal.
    
      Irving Brown, for app’lts; Calvin Frost, for resp’ts.
    
      
       Affirming 14 N Y. State Rep., 525.
    
   Finch, J.

We are not to review the findings of fact which determined the inequality of the relator’s assessment when compared with that of the other property of the town. People ex rel. R., W. and O. R. R. Co. v. Hicks, 105 N. Y., 198; 7 N. Y. State Rep., 359; People ex rel. K. F. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 107 N. Y., 545; 12 N. Y. State Rep., 315.

We are only to inquire whether there was legal evidence tending to that conclusion, and whether any errors of law affected the ultimate decision.

The principal objection argued is that the assessment roll was not returned, and the comparison of values was with a few pieces of property without any proof of the general rate of assessment in the town. The case relied on is People ex rel. Warren v. Carter (109 N. Y., 576; 16 N. Y. State Rep., 367), in which we held that comparison with a single lot did not show that relator was injured. In the present case the comparison was with all the brick-making properties in the town, and which were selected from the roll by a stipulation mutually agreed on. No question was in any manner raised on the hearing that these did not fairly represent the general rate of assessment, or that they furnished an inadequate basis of comparison; but on the contrary, both parties assumed their sufficiency for the purpose intended, and all the evidence was directed to the question of relative values. At least, under.the circumstances here presented, it should be presumed that the properties selected out from the roll by mutual agreement, and used without objection as the basis of comparison, did. fairly represent the proportionate rate of assessment of the property of the town, and so serve as a correct basis for comparison.

We are also of opinion that there was a sufficient application to the assessors to reduce the tax, if such application was necessary to the relief which has been granted. The assessors treated it as sufficient, and ac.ted upon it without objection, by reducing the assessment to the extent of ten thousand dollars.

We think there was no legal error which requires a reversal.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Rug-er, Oh. J., absent.  