
    In the matter of the petition of THOMAS H. WALTER to vacate assessments on Manhattan street.
    
      Application to vacate assessments in New Ywk, when each asssssme?it is equal to one-half the assessed value of the land — if the assessments are made for distinct improvements, application not proper.
    
    Appeal from an order denying an application to vacate an. assessment.
    The petitioner sought to vacate the assessment to which this application relates upon the ground, among others; that after the work was done the commissioner of public works divided the expense into two amounts and caused two assessments to be laid, each of which is the full one-half of the valuation of the land for purposes of taxation, and the aggregate of which is the full valuation.
    The court at General Term said with reference to this ground : “ With regard to the second point it is only necessary,to say, that by the act of 1840, .chap. 326, § 7, it is provided as follows : 1 Section 7. Commissioners or assessors for making estimates and assessments for any improvements authorized by law, to be assessed upon the owners or occupants of houses and lots or improved or unimproved lands, shall, in no case, assess any. house, lot, improved or unimproved lands, more than one-half the value of such house, lot, improved or unimproved land, as valued by the assessors of the ward in which the same shall be situated.”
    The authority thus to assess a lot or piece of land extends to each improvement authorized by law to lie made. The assessment imposed in this case relates to two separate and distinct improvements, determined upon at different times, and in a manner duly authorized by law.
    It is true that the assessments in the aggregate are equal to the full assessed value of the land; but neither of the assessments are in excess of one-half of the value of the land as required by the act of 1840 (supra). The assessments being authorized by law, and neither of them being for more than one-half of the assessed value of the land, it seems to be very clear that the second point is not well taken and is not available therefore to the petitioner.
    
      Edmund Coffin for the petitioner, appellant.
    
      J. A. Beal for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Beady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concurred.

Order affirmed.  