Mr. Joseph T. Hague, for City of Elizabeth.

PIERCE, J.: This is an appeal from an assessment for repaving with granite blocks that portion of Elizabeth avenue, Elizabeth, extending from a point about 150 feet east of Front street to Seventh street. The error complained of is inequality as compared with other assessments.

Appellant is the owner of a triangular lot of land lying between Elizabeth and First avenues, at their intersection at Liberty Square; the lot is bounded northerly 350 feet on Elizabeth avenue, easterly 31 feet on Liberty Square, southerly about 350 feet on First avenue, and westerly 133 feet on abutting property; the lot is vacant except for an old house at the southwest corner fronting on First avenue.

The general method of assessment adopted by the Commissioners was as follows: From the whole cost of the improvement, $220,330.56, was deducted $23,127.29, paid by the Public Service Company for repaving its trolley tracks, leaving $197,203.27, of which one-half was assumed by the City and the other half assessed upon abutting property, being at the rate of $8.82 per linear front foot. The Commissioners adopted this linear front-foot rate as the bases of the assessment, and imposed it upon all lots one hundred feet deep; short lots were given concessions assumed by the City, viz., 12-1/2 per cent. off where the lot was 50 feet deep, 18-3/4 per cent. off where the lot was 25 feet deep, and in that proportion. The Commissioners determined that as to all the lots the assessment was less than the value of the lot, and less than the benefit conferred, but gave no consideration as to the relative value of the lots as between themselves.

In assessing appellant’s triangular lot the following method was adopted: The lot was divided lengthwise by an imaginary line into two equal parts, one fronting on First avenue and the other on Elizabeth avenue. The part on First avenue was not assessed. The part on Elizabeth avenue was assessed at the regular rate of $8.82 for its 350 feet frontage, a total $3,087.00, less three concessions: a concession of 12-1/2 per cent. ($110.25) was allowed on the westerly 100 feet averaging fifty odd feet deep; a concession of 20 per cent. ($441.00) was allowed on the remaining 250 feet averaging thirty odd feet deep; and a concession of 25 per cent. ($68.35) was allowed for the 31 feet fronting on Liberty Square. Total concessions, $619.61, leaving $2,467.40 as the assessment levied. In addition to the concessions the Commissioners made no assessment against the lot for its frontage on Liberty Square.

The result reached by the Commissioners was to assess a lot 350 feet in front on Elizabeth avenue, 15-1/2 feet deep at one end and 66-1/2 at the other, nearly four-fifths as much as though the entire frontage had been full lots 100 feet deep. This is unreasonable and I think more than appellant’s entire lot should be assessed.

I think the Commissioners erred in two respects in their method of assessment:

1. It was improper to divide appellant’s lot lengthwise for the purpose of assessment. The lot was already too shallow for the greater part of its frontage for ordinary building purposes, and to divide it further was to leave two narrow strips, one fronting on Elizabeth avenue and the other on First avenue, neither of any sale value, or practical value for any purpose.

It was held by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Aldridge v. Essex Road Board (51 N. J. L. 166) that assessors may not divide a lot for the purpose of assessment so that, should a sale result to collect the tax, the property would not bring as much as if sold as part of the original parcel. The rule was followed in Coward v. North Plainfield (63 N. J. L. 61), where, as in the case at bar, an imaginary line was drawn midway between two avenues.

2. I think the Commissioners erred also in disregarding the relative benefit received by lots along the line of the improvement resulting from location and value of the property. The assessment was strictly a front-foot assessment with concessions for short lots, but disregarding the element of location and relative value.