People ex rel. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the United States v. Chapin
| Decision Date | 05 October 1886 |
| Citation | 8 N.E. 368,103 N.Y. 635 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF THE UNITED STATES v. CHAPIN, Comptroller, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from an order made at a general term of the supreme court for the Third department, affirming an order made at special term denying the relator's motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the comptroller to cancel the sale of certain lands made by him at the tax sales of 1877 and 1881.
The land in question is situated in the town of Black Brook, Clinton county, and is a part of lot No. 18, in township No. 3, Old Military Tract. The relator is the owner of a mortgage upon the land, made in 1873, by Christopher F. Norton, who was then the owner in fee. Judgment of foreclosure and sale has been entered upon this mortgage, but no sale has yet been had. The land in question was sold at the tax sale of 1877 for the unpaid taxes of 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1870, and bid in by the comptroller on behalf of the state in default of other bidders. It was again offered for sale at the tax sale of 1881 for the unpaid taxes of 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876, and, in form, bid off by the comptroller for and conveyed to the state. At this sale, however, the comptroller claimed that it was already the property of the state by virtue of the sale of 1877, and rejected the bids made for it by other parties. The tax imposed upon this land in 1869 was based upon an assessment roll verified by the assessors before a notary public, and not before a justice of the town of Black Brook. Affidavits showing these facts were submitted to the comptroller, and a demand made on him to cancel the said sales, which was denied by him for the reason ‘that the grounds upon which such cancellation was asked were insufficient in point of law, even if true in point of fact,’ or, as stated in his own affidavit, ‘that he is of opinion that said sales were in all respects regular, and that he has no right by law, and is under no obligation, statutory or otherwise, to cancel said sale.’Mr. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., for respondent, Alfred C. Chapin, comptroller, etc.
Mr. Moore, for the People, etc.
The comptroller acted upon papers presented to him, and refused the application upon the ground that the sales were regular. The matter was for his determination, and we agree with the supreme court in the opinion that he cannot, by mandamus, be required to reach a different...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chittenden v. Wurster
...once made, cannot be corrected by mandamus; so the suggestion of any relief from such a source may be dismissed. People v. Chapin, 103 N. Y. 635, 8 N. E. 368;Id., 104 N. Y. 96, 10 N. E. 141;People v. Fairchild, 67 N. Y. 334. It is equally clear that certiorari will not lie. That writ must b......
-
Harris v. Comm'rs of Land Office
...N. Y. 317, 20 N. E. 609, and 21 N. E. 739;People ex rel. Millard v. Chapin, 104 N. Y. 96, 10 N. E. 141;People ex rel. Equitable Life Ins. Soc. v. Chapin, 103 N. Y. 635, 8 N. E. 368;People v. Leonard, 74 N. Y. 443;People v. Fairchild, 67 N. Y. 334;Howland v. Eldredge, 43 N. Y. 461;People v. ......
-
State ex rel. Osborn v. Jennings
...v. Hodgson (1907) 129 Ga. 494, 59 S. E. 272;U. S. v. Edmunds (1896) 5 Wall. 563, 18 L. Ed. 692. See, also, People ex rel. v. Chapin (1886) 103 N. Y. 635, 8 N. E. 368;People ex rel. v. Adam (1854) 3 Mich. 427. The judgment is ...
-
State ex rel. Osborn v. Jennings
...... 175] Farmers', etc., Co. v. People,. ex rel. (1896), 8 Colo.App. 246, 45 P. 543;. ... (1907), 129 Ga. 494, 59 S.E. 272; United States v. Edmunds (1867), 72 U.S. 563, 18 L.Ed. 692. See,. also, People, ex rel. v. Chapin (1886), 103. N.Y. 635, 8 N.E. ......