85 N.Y. 536 | NY | 1881
We are unable to see why the petitioner is not a "party aggrieved" within the meaning of that phrase as used in the act of 1858. He became the owner of the premises, as to which he seeks to vacate an assessment, after such assessment was confirmed, and took his title, by the express terms of the conveyance, subject to all assessments affecting the property. It is claimed, and the General Term so decides, following previous decisions of similar purport (Matter of Moore, 8 Hun, 513;Matter of Saunders, 10 W. Dig. 351), that one who purchases after the confirmation of an assessment must be presumed to have protected himself from its consequences by a reduction of the purchase-price, or some other form of indemnity, and so cannot be deemed a party aggrieved by the assessment. Such a presumption does not seem to us reasonable or just. It is quite as natural and probable a presumption that the purchaser did not know of the assessments, or if he did, that he knew them to be illegally imposed, and bought, believing them to be null, and relying upon his ability to remove them. Prima facie, and in the absence of modifying facts, it is the owner of land who is aggrieved by the imposition of an unlawful assessment. It is his title that is clouded, and his interest that is assailed. That fact on its face authorizes him to seek relief, and invoke the appropriate remedy. *539
By what logic have we a right to guess at unknown facts, and thereby deny him relief? His ownership established, and the illegality of an assessment imposed, make out his case. If, notwithstanding, he has in fact been indemnified, or assumed the assessment and agreed to pay it, or deducted the amount from the purchase-price, those are facts for the city to show, not for the courts to presume There is no such natural or necessary presumption. The truth may be that, or directly the reverse. In a case like the present where the illegality of the same class of assessments had been adjudged before the purchase, it is much the more reasonable presumption that neither indemnity nor reduction of price existed. Such an assessment would naturally be treated as null. The vendor would not reduce his price, nor the vendee seek a protection deemed unnecessary. The cases cited as authority in this court for the presumptions relied on do not so decide. (Matter of Bassford,
Orders of General Term and of Special Term reversed, with costs to abide the event, and proceedings remitted to the Special Term for a hearing upon the matters alleged in the petition.
All concur.
Orders reversed. *541