People ex rel. Jalbert Scobell v. John Kilborn et al. — Supreme Court, Onondaga Special Term (July 1901)

Factual and Procedural Background

Relator Jalbert Scobell appeared before the assessors of the Village of Cape Vincent at the proper time and orally objected to the valuation placed on his property, asserting that the assessment exceeded the property's cost or value and should be reduced. He did not file the written, sworn statement prescribed by statute that specifies the respects in which an assessment is incorrect. He did, however, offer to be sworn and examined. The assessors did not request a verified written statement, they did not examine him, and they did not object to his oral presentation. The assessors subsequently acted on his protest by reducing the complained-of valuation by $500.

Respondents moved to quash relator's proceeding on the ground that the relator had not filed the statutory written statement under oath. The court considered that motion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a relator's failure to file the written and sworn statement required by statute precludes relief and justifies quashing the writ.
2. Whether the assessors' acceptance of an oral (parol) objection, their failure to require the statutory written statement or to examine the relator, and their subsequent reduction of the assessment operates as a waiver of the statutory filing requirement.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents objected to the relator's proceeding on the ground that he failed to comply with the statute by not filing a written, sworn statement specifying the respects in which the assessment was incorrect, and they sought to have the writ quashed on that basis.

Relator's Position

• The relator appeared timely, made an oral objection to the assessment, offered to be sworn and examined, and the assessors received his parol statement and acted on it by reducing the valuation. The relator's position, as reflected in the proceedings, was that this conduct amounted to a waiver by the assessors of the written-statement requirement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recited the sequence of events: relator's timely appearance and oral objection; his failure to file the statutory written and sworn statement; his offer to be sworn and examined; and the assessors' response—no request for a verified statement, no examination of the relator, no objection to his oral presentation, and a subsequent reduction of the assessment by $500.

The court reasoned that the assessors' conduct in receiving the relator's parol statement, not taking formal evidence, and then acting upon the objection without objection constituted a waiver of the relator's failure to file the written statement required by statute. The court further observed that the assessors had "full power and jurisdiction" to make such a waiver. To support that legal conclusion, the court cited two prior decisions (People ex rel. West Shore R.R. Co. v. Johnson and People ex rel. Eckerson v. Christie) as authority consistent with permitting assessors to waive the statutory requirement under the circumstances presented.

Because the court concluded the assessors waived the statutory filing requirement, it found the respondents' objection—that the relator had not filed the written sworn statement—unsuccessful.

Holding and Implications

MOTION TO QUASH DENIED.

Direct consequences ordered by the court:

• The motion to quash the writ was denied.
• The relator was awarded ten dollars in costs.
• An order of reference under the statute was to be made; the parties were permitted to agree upon and submit the name of a referee if possible, and if not, the court would appoint one.

The opinion does not purport to announce a new, broader rule of law beyond its application to the facts presented; its effect is to uphold the proceeding on the ground that the assessors' actions constituted a waiver of the statutory filing requirement in this case.

Opinion delivered by Hiscock, J.