Ensign v. Barse

• Decision Date: 24 January 1888
• Citation: 15 N.E. 401
• Parties: ENSIGN et al. v. BARSE et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

15 N.E. 401

ENSIGN et al.

v.BARSE et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

January 24, 1888.

Motion for reargument. For former report, see 14 N. E. Rep. 400.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-TITLES OF LAWS-OBJECTS EMBRACED IN.

New York act of 1882, c. 287, entitled ‘An act to amend chapter 229 of the Laws of 1879, entitled ‘An act in reference to the collection of taxes” in certain counties, and making, under certain circumstances, the conveyances of the comptroller and treasurer of the lands in the said counties conclusive evidence of title, is not in violation of Const. N. Y. art. 3, s 16, which provides that ‘no local bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be embraced in its title.’

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS OF LAW-CONCLUSIVE EFFECT OF TAX DEED.

Neither is it in violation of Const. N. Y. art. 1, s 6, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

3. HIGHWAYS-TAXATION-LIABILITY OF NON-RESIDENT LANDS.

Laws N. Y. 1835, c. 154, s 1, providing that ‘the real property of non-resident owners, improved or occupied by a servant or agent, shall be subject to assessment of highway labor, and at the same rate as real property of resident owners,’ does not exempt from such tax non-resident lands not so occupied, nor does it repeal section 19, pt. 1, tit. 1, c. 16, art. 2, which made all non-resident lands pierced by, or adjacent to, a road, assessable for highway labor.

4. TAXATION-SALE-PROCEEDINGS-REPEAL OF STATUTE.

Act N. Y. April 10, 1850, repealed Rev. St. pt. 1, tit. 3, c. 13, arts. 2, 3, relating to the assessment and collection of taxes, but with the proviso that such repeal should not affect ‘any tax levied or assessed prior to the year 1849, nor any proceeding for the collection thereof by a sale of the lands taxed, or otherwise,’ and changed the proceedings for the collection of non-resident taxes by taking from the comptroller the authority to make the sale, and giving it to the treasurer. Held, that a sale made by the treasurer in 1852, pursuant to the act of 1850, for taxes levied in 1849, but returned to the comptroller before April 10, 1850, was valid.

5. TAXATION-TAX TITLE-VALIDITY-PRESUMPTION FROM LAPSE OF TIME.

In an action of ejectment, plaintiff contested defendant's title, which was acquired at a tax sale in 1852, for the reasons (1) that the assessors did not sign the judgment roll as required by statute, though they did sign the certificate attached thereto; (2) that in that part of the certificate which relates to the mode of valuation the words ‘solvent creditor’ appeared, instead of ‘solvent debtor;’ (3) that the assessment was not verified at the proper time; (4) that the treasurer's notice of the tax sale was not delivered to the printer until after the time provided by law, though otherwise sufficient. Held, that these defects were not jurisdictional, and were cured by act N. Y. 1882, c. 287, which provides that when 15 years have elapsed since such sale of unoccupied and unimproved lands, belonging to a non-resident, the sale and all proceedings shall be deemed to have been regular.

6. TAXATION-ASSESSMENT-ENTRY OF-OMISSION OF DOLLAR-SIGN.

Rev. St. N. Y. pt. 1, tit. 2, c. 13, art. 3, s 33, provides that the county board shall set down in the assessment roll, opposite the valuations of real and personal estate, ‘the respective sums, in dollars and cents, to be paid as tax thereon.’ Held, that a tax set down in the proper column, but without the dollar-sign, was not for that reason invalid.

7. TAXATION-ASSESSMENT-DATE OF WARRANT-NUMBER OF DISTRICT.

Rev. St. N. Y. do not require that the date of the commissioner's warrant or the number of the road-district shall appear upon the assessment roll, to make a higway tax valid. Ensign v. Barse, 14 N. E. 400, followed.

Wm. F. Cogswell and E. D. Northrup, for the motion.

John C. Hall and D. H. Bolles, contra.

FINCH, J.

A motion is made in this case, after the filing of the remittitur in the court below, and the entry of judgment thereon, that we address a request to such court to vacate the judgment, and return the remittitur, with a view to a reargument of the appeal. I have examined the criticisms upon the opinion delivered with all the care which the importance of the case demands,...