
    (74 Hun, 18.)
    PEOPLE ex rel. PRATT INSTITUTE v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF CITY OF BROOKLYN.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    December 1, 1893.)
    Taxation—Exemption.
    Laws 1887, c. 398, § 10, providing that the property of the Pratt Institute, In the city of Brooklyn, shall be exempt from “local taxation,” exempts such Institute only from taxation for city purposes. Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
    Appeal from special term, Kings, county.
    Application by the Pratt Institute for a writ of mandamus to the board of assessors of the city of Brooklyn to compel defendant to cancel the taxation imposed in 1892 on relator’s property. The application was granted, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
    Almet F. Jenks, for appellant.
    Johnson & Lamb, (Jesse Johnson, of counsel,) for respondents.
   PRATT, J.

The act of 1887 states that property of the relator in the city of Brooklyn shall be exempt from local taxation. We think that by “local taxation” the legislature intended taxation for city purposes. The locality referred to was the city of Brooklyn. No other locality was spoken of; and, so far as we can see, none other was considered. The appellant correctly argues that special statutes conferring immunities should be strictly construed, and, if the legislature had intended that the relator should be subject to no taxation except for state purposes, it could have easily said so. Order of special term reversed, with costs.

BARNARD, P. J.,

(dissenting.) By chapter 398, Laws 1887, the relator’s property is declared not to be “subject to local taxation” unless it exceeds $3,000,000 in value. The property of the Pratt Institute is less than this sum, and the court, at special term, held that local taxation included taxation for city and county purposes. The distinction between state and local taxation is fully recognized in statute and by judicial decision. All taxation is local which is not of common benefit to all the people of the state. It is entirely immaterial whether or not the property is in the city. The legislature could have exempted it from all purposes, state and local. An exemption from local taxation only exempts the same from the general state tax, and excludes taxation for city and county purposes. The judgment should be affirmed with $50 costs. 
      
       Chapter 398, § 10.
     