*1 Ensign et Barse al. et 329 of case. Statement W. al.,
William H. Appellants, Mills Barse
et al., Respondents. “ chapter 1879, act to amend 229 of The act of 1882 entitled an the Laws of ‘ in reference to the of the an act collection taxes in counties of entitled Cattaraugus,’ Chautauqua and the act amendatory and thereof and ” (Chap. 1882) supplemental thereto Laws of is not violative of the (art. 16) private provision of the state Constitution which declares no § subject act shall embrace more than one and that shall be stated or local title; subject system collection, stated the the the embraces entire of in collection, conveyances of including the sale lands to enforce the as evidence and muniments of title. their force repugnant provision is not act of said constitution of Said declaring person (art. 6), or the federal no of Constitution shall § life, deprived liberty property process without due of be law. (64 262) distinguished. Y. Howard v. Moot F. 2) declaring period provision (g that whenever a of fifteen said sale, elapsed conveyance, years after on a tax of the lands of shall have counties, lying in said the former or claimant a non-resident owner possession period, conveyance into within that shall have entered not proceedings prior thereto evidence that the and the shall be conclusive sale etc., jurisdictional to and does not cure regular, were was not intended dispensed legislature defects nature as that the could not of such a comply consti- requirement, a failure to with which statutory with the tutes the defects. leaving the presumption regularity, The act raises conclusive unaffected, points authority questions jurisdiction assessors’ dispensed by legislative action. may not authority of regards the may jurisdictional, as A defect be in one sense respects the law, yet it existing not so as acting under an assessors power pass curing the defect. legislature a statute warrant tax roll and in a An dollar mark in statement omission jurisdictional is not defect. of the amount a tax assessment-roll, signed the assessors was not an made out Where S., 393, (1 then force R. required by statute certificate, upon the itself and which roll 26), which was written g having been the work and as assessment-roll above referred to Held, jurisdictional, was not assessors, the defect signed. act of 1882. so, reach of the beyond paper piece separate on a written if the certificate seemsthat It the same. roll, have been the conclusion would and attached to jShattuck distinguished. 39) F. Y. v. Baseom LXII.
Sickels—Yol. Eirsmif et al. et al. [Nov:,, *2 of
Statement case. part In of the certificate which that related to the mode of the- valuation creditor” were words “solvent written instead of “solvent debtor Held, jurisdictional that this was not a defect. county tax, highway The assessment was for a no number of the road given. district or date of commissioners’ warrant Held, it was not requisite appear that these details should on the assessment-roll. county in The sale was 1853. The treasurer’s notice of sale was not printers publication delivered to the for on or before the day Sep- first required by 398, (Chap. the act tember of 1850 1850.) Laws The- December; day Tuesday of sale was the first in the notice was dated fifteenth; September published it was in once each week pre- for the Held, jurisdictional. scribed ten weeks. that the defect was not which, provision 6, 145, Chap. The (§ act of 1835 1835), Laws of provides “the real property improved non-resident owners or- by agent, occupied subject servant or a shall be to highway assessment of owners,” and at the same rate as resident labor not intended to take: provisions S., place (1 505, Revised Statutes R. 19§ seq.), in reference the assessment of et non-resident lands for labor, provide simply lands occupied non-resident him, servant, improved by agent or his should be assessed the same as lands, leaving occupied non-resident lands not so improved resident to- provided by the former be assessed statute. 398, (Chap. provision of said act of 1850), The Laws of repealing Statutes, portions of the but declaring, repeal certain Revised that such “ any prior 1849, year not affect tax levied or assessed to the nor thereof,” proceeding for the collection did not any effect to collection, land, upon in from sale of tax assessed exclude comptroller prior passage land and returned to the non-resident of' simply changed prospective The act the future course of said act. the collection of such a tax. proceeding for accordingly the new conformity with the act was A sale valid. held 281) distinguished. Whitney Thomas v. N. Y. 29, 17, 1887; 1887.) decided November (Argued October Term the from of the General Appeal Supreme- judgment entered an order. in the fifth Court upon department, judicial affirmed favor of 1885, made October 7, judgment the court. a verdict directed entered defendants to recover an action This was ejectment possession lands situate in certain county. Cattaraugus in the are stated opinio material facts et «. al. 188V.] 331. of case.
Statement
void,
deed was
F. Cogswell
appellants.
William
to redeem
notice
from such
reason
premises
for the
accordance with
terms of the-statute.
published
tax sale was
(R
art.
3,
tit.
3,
76,
411;
S., chap.
part
p.
§
.
Y.
The statute of 1850
47 N.
Wiley,
Westbrook
and had no
to lands
application
was purely prospective,
10,1850.
(
prior April
Whitney
returned to the comptroller
281, 284;
R. S.
tit.
art.
Y.
Chap.
23 N.
Thomas,
*3
were not in 1849-
question
The premises
2,
1, p. 402.)
part
of 1832,
(Laws
Chap.
170;
tax.
p.
liable
highway
Heckman v.
81
163;
145, p.
Pinckney,
Laws of 1835, Chap.
treasurer
sale
county judge
The
being-
N. Y.
by
211.)
is.
void,
was
whole sale
of which
part
for the
tax,
whole
tax, although very
Burbank,
Wells v.
tax.
2 Greenl. 375
Merriam,
;
v.
(House
v.
Wis.
Warner
601;
v.
19
Ballard,
17 N. H. 393 Kimball
;
on Tax Titles,
19 id.
Blackwell
Co.,
611;
Outagamie
162.)
for the-
for
sale was void
E. D.
appellants.
Northrup
sale.
four
were
in one
blended
years
reason
separate
6 Wheat.
v.
(Thatcher v.
Nat. Ins. Co.
Powell,
119;
[U. S.]
5 Abb.
1 Seld.
445; Beekman v.
S.],
McKay,
Bigman,
[N.
v.
v.
47 N. Y.
366;
Holdridge,
Westbrook
Becker
Wiley,
461;
v.
Y.
How.
Merritt
71N.
429;
Chester,
47
Port
Village of
v.
v.
Hassan
309;
528; Register
id.
City
67
Rochester,
359;
1
2
Vt.
Hawks,
v.
Bryan,
17;
Hayden,
Culver
Hill,
4
Johnson,
v.
McDonald
v.
9
546
Gravier,
;
La.
Sharp
v.
Newell
249;
Atkins
v.
99;
Wend.
20
Kinnan,
434;
Hill,
Wheeler,
7
Reade,
48 N.
v.
Y. 490; Sherwood
the.
void
v.
sale was
Powell
3 Y.N.
Tuttle,
405.)
notice
his
reason
failed to
publish
comptroller
this state
in all the
redemption
newspapers
public
Eastman, 50
v.
1
(Bunner
R. S.
76.
required
ed.],
[2d
§
re
460; In
N. Y.
640;
Barb.
v.
47
Westbrook Wiley,
et al. Barse
332
[3STov.,
Statement
case.
v.
1
46
id.
42;
id.
Doughty Hope,
79;
Douglass,
Thompson
v.
61 id.
Varick
2
66;
Tallman,
v.
Barb.
Burhans,
113;
12 Me.
The taxes
Leavitt,
v.
were void for the
378.)
Bussy
.reason that neither
valuations
nor the taxes
property
in dollars and cents as
"themselves, were expressed
required
the statute.
R. S.
subds.
(1
ed.], 444,
3, 4, 448,
p.
[3d
§
In re
61
33
Church
;
Holy
How. R. 315
Sepulchre,
;
§
18
v.
92 Y.
N.
632;
N.
Y. W.
Boese,
Reese
Dike
285;
Dig.
1
4
237;
Den.
R. S.
ed.], 445,
v.
id. 348
Lewis,
12;
[3d
§
23 N. Y. W.
48;
v.
v.
33;
Cook
People
Chapin,
Dig.
§
for the
43 Ill.
Also
reason that that the
Norton,
assess-
itself
ment-roll
assessors,
the statute
signed by
then
R. S.
v.
ed.], 447, 26;
Wash
required.
Mygatt
[3d
§
15
v.
N. Y.
11
316;
id.
burn,
People
Supervisors,
563;
v.
Statement
case.
1
64;
v.
51 N. Y.
East,
v. Gill,
Bellinger
Gray,
Davison
5
Crane,
Pro.
Clark v.
Mich.
934;
Civil
610; Code
§
at
to said
the case
bar
certificate
assessors
In
155.)
1849
for
reason that the
defective,
assessment-roll
is evaded
and the words-
statute
R. S.
ed.],
26),
(1
[3d
§
“
words
debtox-,”
solvent creditor
substituted
solvent
real estate.
Weaver,
v.
respect
appraisal
(People
55
Fowler,
Mills,
v.
N.Y.
Wheeler
252;
How.
v.
477; People
67
Whitbeck, 3 Seld.
Van Rensselaer v.
West
644;
517;
40 Barb.
49 N.
Barto v.
22
253
Preston,
342;
Hun,
Y.
v.
Cooper,
fall
6
v.
Lans.
v.
Elmira,
116;
Thomas,
N. B’k
Whitney
Chemung
58
Beach v.
How.
284;
17;
Gray,
23 N. Y.
v.
Hayes,
Bellinger
for the reason that the said assessors’
Also
Statement case. v. 41 id. People Snyder, Chapter 298, Laws 397.) all statutes repealed to sales of lands existing relating for .arrears of and established an taxes, new and entirely independ ent and said system therefor, chapter wholly prospective in its v. 23 provisions. (Whitney Thomas, N. Y. 284; v. 19 Mayor, etc., Buell, N. Y. Week. Dig. 446.) Chapter “ 229, Laws of entitled An act in page reference to the collection of taxes the counties of Chautauqua so far as is, relates to the last Cattaraugas,” sentence of the section thirty-second thereof, unconstitutional. v. (People 35 Hill, Y.N. In re 451; Sackett, De Douglass Gra w id. Sts., 74 In re 56 103; Van id. 201; v. Antwerp, People 52 id. re In id. 95 Briggs, 553; Com’rs, etc., 74 ; v. People 38 O’Brien, id. 16 199; id. People v. McCann, 58; Williams v. 24 id. Huber v. 49 id. People, 407; Water 134; People, town v. 65 id. Fairbank, the statute 583.) Notwithstanding affects to make the tax-deed conclusive defects in evidence, yet be under the rules of proceedings may proved ordinary n evidence, and the tax titles defeated. v. alleged (Stewart 22 Week. 441; Kent’s 423 Crysler, Com. Dash Dig. ; v. Kleek, Van Johns. 447; 7 Vance v. 28 L. Vance, Alb. Jour .66; Hickox 38 Tallman, v. Barb. 30 612; Hun, 121; Jac kson v. 18 Johns. Morse, 441; White v. 13 Wall. Hart, 653; Osborn v. 13 id. 646 Nicholson, 4 ; v. Porter, Taylor Hill, ' 140; v. 13 Wynehamer N. Y. People, 394; Wilkinson v. , 2 Pet. Leland, v. Atkins 50 He. 658; Ill; Dunlap, Coffin v. Rich, id. v. 507; Read 23 id. 318; Pro- Frankfort, Ken. Pun. v. prietors Laboree, id. 275.) John Mall G. and D. H. It Bolles is to respondents. presumed treasurer the notice of county published . redemption statute required by (Colman Shattuck, 62 N. Y. use in 348, ” the certificate of the word “ creditor of the word a mere debtor was clerical place -error, which misled no one and does not indicate that assessors an unsound basis of assessment. adopted (McIntyre the roll, based Sanford, Daly, 21.) objection fact no dénomination is given copy *6 v. 335 et al.
Statement of case. n theassessment-roll produced, figures representing the and likewise to the the tax is valuation, figures representing Smith, T. v. 32 Hun, 121; N. Co. 96 (Am. Y. unimportant. Chamberlain, id. v. 36 The statute did not 670; Taylor, 24.) roll that the the road district in which require specify had assessed nor number of labor labor. days 1, art. tit. As to the S., 47, 50, R. chap. pt. 51.) §§ .time of the statute notice, preparation delivery 6 v. Wend. 486; Bradley (People Allen, merely directory. v. 401; v. 58 Y. Assessors Wilson Ward, People N. All lands in a E. the non-resident 10 N. Somerset, Rep. 871.) D ; are labor. Ab. Statute (Bacon’s town subject 5 10 Wend. Bowen v. Trustees, 547; Lease, v. Harrington its act of course subjects pro- Hill, 225.) lands which had been theretofore all non-resident cedure, v. 47 (Smith returned comptroller. People, regularly that called for N. Y. occasion passage 330.) its enactment to be law and the properly sought by object n considered determining v. its construction. (Sturgis Hall, N. Y. 228; v. 70 Smith v. 48 302: Vt. People Sup'rs, id. B'k, v. White's 37 Har 57; Nash Hun, 501; 32 Newell, v. 49 22 Y. Southwick 108; Southwick, N. v. People, tung 101 id. v. McGuire, 161; v. Strout, id. Denman 517; Capron J. v. 27 N. State Larned, 557; 304; Eq. 11 Randolph Nev. 55 Tr. Ala. Co., 53 128 v. Mobile ; Mo. Grey Co., v. Vernon former act re-enacts an provisions When amending 387.) n ofthe taken as mere act will be continu the latter former, and all former, of those proceedings .ation the former act while of these provisions, pursuance 15 v. Neb. Wish, valid and effectual. (State remain force, 439 v. 45 ; Baldwin, 46 Wis. State v. Tabert, 448 ; Scheftels v. Md. Ballin 615; etc., v. 134; Mayor, Dashill Conn. N. J. R. R. Co. 26 v. N. Middleton 546; Ga. Ferst, 53 Mo. Lande v. Chic. 128; v. Co., Vernon State 269; Eq. L. v. 34 N. J. Co., Warren R. 640 Belvidere ; Wis. Co., R. M. 66 Penn. St. Pac. Comm., 70; Co. Tel. Co. 193 Pac. ; 47 N. Y. 450; Smith 2 Wall. People, v. Goliffe, *7 Ensign et [Nov.,. Baese et al. Court, per Finch, of the J. J. If the tax of title the defendants is good, any Finch, discussion the title and the plaintiffs’ defect break- alleged its chain, will to be and ing prove needless; it is there- best, fore, to whether, inquire conceding sufficiency title taken plaintiffs’ itself, has been by and ren- destroyed defendants, dered unavailing title of the by paramount sales, derived a sale of the land for taxes. Two through such one in occurred; and by comptroller one by treasurer of in 1852. Various Cattaraugus county defects in disclosed, which the claim proceedings appellants invalidated the and to the effect conveyances resulting was directed. portion argument large far as these defects were not
So
jurisdictional and amounted
to
were cured
they
act of
irregularities,
1882.'
where fifteen
(Chap.
provided
287),
years
after a
or
elapsed
conveyance by
comptroller
county
lands in
treasurer of
Chautauqua
Cattaraugus county
owners,
to non-resident
and such owners had
belonging
not.
into actual
the same and
entered
possession
permanent
the deed or
thereon,
should be
improvements
conveyance
“the
sale and
“conclusive” evidence
all proceedings
from and
the assessment of
thereto,
the land
prior
including
or hereafter
all notices heretofore
and
to
law be
required by
to the
of the time
expiration
allowed
law
previous
given,
and were
redeem,
were
regularly
published
regular
given,
of all
laws
served
and
according
requiring-
manner
the same
thereto.”
any
relating
and directing
this
scope
range
enactment,
Before considering
it is
in*the tax sales,
the defects
dis-
necessary
relatively
itself
the statute
an attack
conflict
being
pose
title is An act to amend
Its
Constitution.
chapter
‘ An act in
entitled
reference to the
Laws
counties of
in the
Cattar-
of taxes
Chautauqua
collection
thereof and
the acts amendatory
supplementary
augus
the act of
32 of
amends section
1879.
It.
It
thereto.’”
county
the deeds
comptroller
judge
makes
in all
cases, and.
evidence
regularity
treasurer presumptive
et al. efcal.
Barse
Finch,
Court, per
Opinion of the
criticism
in some. The
of regularity
evidence
conclusive
embraced
than one subject
more
suggested
*8
article 3 of the Constitu
16 of
section
it violates
and so
bill,
one
The
subject
that opinion.
of
not
tion. We are
the two counties named.
in
taxes
of
bill
is the collection
n
The
of collection.
sale
system
the entire
That
covers
fairly
effect
the deeds
collection;
give
of the lands enforces
and muni
evidence
force
and their
sale,
vitality
of
element
system.
and essential
a natural
ments of title is
a similar
objection
In
Allen
N. Y.
538),
Supervisors
under dis
the form of that
title
considered.
cussion
it
claimed that
authorizing
and was
treasurers
the banks
which
supervisors
designate
state
banks
such
deposit
moneys
directing
interest
and one
a
introduced
new
pay
bonds,
give
subject
not covered
the title.
We held the
deciding
by
contrary,
provisions were connected
with
designated
subject
the title. That
in the
not
adopted
statute before us is
decep
tive or
The enactment
misleading.
which
contains nothing
one
the title
not
reading
might
expect
reasonably
naturally
to find in the statute as within its
title
That
scope.
gave
notice that an amendment of the laws in
force in
two
counties for the collection of taxes was
and no
proposed,
reader of or listener to that title, could
complain
fairly
at
deception whatever point of the
its details
or
general system
an amendment was introduced
manner or
bearing upon
efficacy
system tax collection.
(Matter
applica
tion
Paul,
and in violation of section 6 of article 1 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be life, deprived or liberty without property due process law. counsel on both sides as to agree a curative legitimate range statute. They agree statute defects retrospective curing in a legal proceeding where are in their nature they irregu- larities and do not extend to matters of LXII.
Sickels—Vol. Ejstsigit et al. Barse Nov., et al. Court, Futch, per oí the if the not on constitutional void thing wanting grounds; or constitutes the defect is omitted, something, for which the have with necessity dispensed legislature might if done in or has done or statutes, prior something imma- particular way might legislature terial, the omission be cured subse- irregular may statute. We see no reason the counsel quent disagree in this statement of the at least for law, present general pur- it be above criticism poses, though may beyond excep- tion. The act of 1882 does not on its face to cure purport n jurisdictional defects. It raises a conclusive presumption but leaves the the assessors’ regularity, question : ;and jurisdiction unaffected. Thiis comes within understood, authority *9 -the rule which counsel concede to be correct. It does not the tax deed conclusive evidence of but make complete-title, to the owner full the to assail open right proceedings '.leaves ,any jurisdictional respect.
We such defects in the should, therefore, disregard pro as are not acts or but founded ceedings jurisdictional, upon within the to .omissions the have wholly power legislature n dispensed with or treated and in so it will immaterial, doing be I the defects out and found, think, two pointed relied the senior counsel of the upon open by appellants discussion. our attention title of 1852 we to the tax Confining to consider the defects. That required .are following alleged tax of 1849 and it sale was made for the county is not that the amount of the tax is objected expressed n dollarsand is absence cents. This founded upon objection v. Smith dollar mark. In American Tool Company the face on Abb. same (14 appeared 378), difficulty [N. C.] assess of the invalidate was held not to assessment-roll and 670.) Y. (96 N. That in this case was affirmed court. ment. not did sign 'The second the assessors is, objection should 'the roll. assessors sign The statute that the required certificate assessment-roll and attach a specified S., 1, chap. also be them. R. part signed by the certificate case art. In the present title § al. Bakse et Finch, Court, per the roll That but not. certificate referred to and signed the roll it identified which was attached. It of it as spoke above and as assessment-roll,” been the work of having “ all the assessors. consideration of Passing what might have been this if omission no consequence healing it evident that the passed, quite legislature might with the assessorsto the roll dispensed signatures content as such and been with their to the certificate signature as a sufficient identification the officialact. In appended case the certificate was written the roll upon present itself not annexed to and it would have been it, merely to have made the one within power entirely legislative The defect, to the certificate alone necessary. signature the reach so therefore, beyond jurisdictional of the act of 1882. the same of the third defect enumerated. take view
We form of the certificate part prescribed “ of valuation words solvent it relates to the mode solvent debtor.” The instead creditor question appear the tax this error while effect of standing is not as to the a subse- legislature unexcused, power it immaterial and leave to make statute and healing quent useful, but the is important harmless. The provision *10 it without entirely have dispensed legislature might or it to follow the of the tax, required the validity affecting here adopted. very phraseology is which the fourth awaits objection, answer
The same assessors’ certificate indicating the date founded upon sure are not We 1849. quite made that it was August this brief upon understand correctly appellants’ that we then stood, as the law to concede that, seem point. They have been could the roll legally is now, it different though should have and as the first as August, verified day early the verification assumes that That verified forthwith.” it to that was cite show also too late. But authority was they in the nature was also if was one, This defect, too soon. further. need not consider we an which irregularity Exsigst Baese et al. [ÍTov., Court, per oí the Finch The fifth that objection is, assessment was highway no void number of because road or date district, of commis- sioners’ was warrant We are referred to no given. provision of the law which these details requires to on the appear we discovered assessment-roll, none. that the is,
The sixth treasurer’s notice of the tax objection act of 1850, sale was which was then in required by force, for to the on be delivered or printer publication before the 1st whereas it is dated day September, September was not delivered to 15, 1852, presumably printer at until least that date. sale was the first day Tuesday sale was the notice of once December; in each published week for the ten as the weeks, affidavits prescribed . relied and the defect on is printers show, that the simply notice was not delivered for itas publication early have been. The cite for the doctrine respondents authority that the on the first provision delivery September but that so it is whether or not certain that directory only; the defect not of the act of 1882. beyond remedy defects thus far considered leave two remaining of the tax sale of alleged against validity these are so jurisdictional go directly authority of the assessors the tax at all that must levy be con- they sidered on their merits without aid from the statute of 1882.
A tax on which portion sale of to have been a tax and the appears assessed in highway claims at law appellant date no there was an authorized assessment for non- purposes lands resident The contention occupied improved. that section 1 of “the act of 1835 which provides real non-resident owners property occupied improved a servant or shall be an assessment high- agent, subject labor and of resident at the same rate as the real way property “ read if owners should be it contained the words *11 those lands all and other non-resident thus, only,” exempting from a section 19 tax, repealed by implication, highway Statutes, 1 and article 2 of the Devised chapter title part et al. Barse Finch, Court, per Opinion of the lands assessablefor labor all non-resident highway which a later sections of the or to road. But adjacent where pierced this idea and become are inconsistent of 1835 repug- such construction. Its any and incomprehensible upon nant of the of the amends section 22 chapter section Revised second and commissioners of to, referred requires high- Statutes a list all and of land lots, make out pieces parcels ways need there What of this non-residents. possible owned by and lands of a class non-residents improved if occupied only 3 of the act of 1835, % amends to be taxed Section were again of the Revised Statutes provides section assessing at least and then adds that the male inhabitant one day, every the estate of shall be inhabit- upon residue apportioned every “ or each tract of land of ant of town and upon parcel are in the owners non-residents contained the list made which still be a The statute adds that if there deficiency aforesaid. the estates of the shall be assessed labor upon each land inhabitants tract upon parcel these contradictions the owners non-residents. Surely careless should even very scarcely charged legisla- ture. also of such a construction challenge consequences our are all or unimproved attention. unoccupied Hot only even lands of non-residents relieved of the burden highway than the those other owners occupied improved by persons no sense either servants or A tenant just agents.” his he servant or rent, landlord. Paying agent lease his an owner estate his non-resident own, and a might have the benefit lands a tenant for years property of the burdens. bear none highways owner and the lands would be to treat the tenant as escape true meaning no non-resident. And that longer suggests left of the Revised Statutes section 1. The provisions and dis- to create doubt troublesome open question likely 19 commanded officers. Section agreement among highway in the town land every occvpyi/ng person owning he or she lands of non-residents resides, and the anon- land owned be assessedfor now, labor. If, *12 Ensign et al. v. Babse et al. 342 | Nov., Finch, Court, per resident should be resident occupied or by agent servant, form should it be taxed ? If treated as non-resident land it be if would no road it or exempt pierced it, adjoined if could at assessed, the rate and, only a quarter day’s labor for of valuation; but if $100 every treated as the land of a resident neither the occupant, nor the exemption limitation This would apply. difficulty solved legislature the act by of 1835. That lands provided of a non-resident occupied such owner his or or improved by or servant should be agent assessed the same manner at the same rate as resident lands. The thus disclosed was obvious. purpose It was to treat lands thus as if to a occupied resident and take belonging them out of the of non-resident lands. The amend- category of 1835 ment the word “owner” dropped somewhat of section but did not alter changed phraseology its pur- so that the or result effect; pose was make change lands the non-resident owner’s occupied improved by agent or servant assessable as resident lands and against occupant at rate the same and leave non-resident lands not so occupied to the assessment the statute. This improved provided by law seems to us reasonable and sensible. view the It does the contradictions to which we have with avoids referred, away of non-residents inference which the an exemption legisla- directed if that had distinctly intent, ture would to stand without a two statutes and enables the together repeal 1 of said that section of 1835 It implication. the entire rule and and furnishes covers whole subject of the Revised must 19 Statutes section therefore, system, and, exact contro- point be deemed assumes That repealed. does not cover the referred We think the section versy. and deals it; small part whole indeed, very subject; lands. For these of non-resident class specified and authority that the assessorshad reasons we hold jurisdiction final objec- unless to assess the land for purposes, shall be valid. tion taken to prove jurisdiction when the act of sale of 1852 (chap. articles in force. That act repealed expressly 298) Ensign et al. Basse et al. *13 Finch, Court, Opinion per the J. ¡Revised 1 of 13, the 3, title chapter part Statutes, 3 of “ that such should tax not affect repeal proviso any to the assessed nor
levied or prior year proceeding any or thereof a sale lands taxed for the collection their and the for Such assessments otherwise.” proceedings to the to were thus left enforcement, prior operation the new law and not to the then process. subjected existing in that 1850 was on the tenth The act of April passed day first and on or before the Before its day passage, year. to been returned that the lands here in month, question taxes the as non-resident lands which the comptroller remained return had uncollected. This been then law, treasurer accordance with the existing of the act of that was identical with the respect that latter act was 1850. The claim is now advanced wholly no law and that as to non-resident taxes of 1849 prospective, their existed for the old law collection, repealed having This and the new law reasoning; being strictly prospective. that the intended involves a conclusion deliberately legislature that of 1849. -not to collect the non-resident taxes Why is to Such have been conceive. should so impossible that to the state violence to result produces injustice taxation which the deems both law just equality in the terms of the act of 1850 makes essential. ¡Nothing and no ineffectual, the return invalid or comptroller disclosed. On the such anywhere contrary, purpose of the act was for the evidently object change proceedings taxes in a of non-resident essential collection particular,, single the sale of lands in the was to such of' place authority action of treasurer take it from the away county that the believed new evidently comptroller. legislature would affect taxes clause, well as the provisions, repealing as it both respects for previous years, against guards “ repeal its assertion years 1849; prior to 1849,, the old taxes previous law not affect assessed for their collection, plainly quite progress proceedings new affect the taxes act was intended to implies et al. [Fov., et al. Finch, Court, per and the taken thereunder proceedings by changing future and course of such prospective proceedings. second title of the act relates to sales for taxes, unpaid that whenever on tax lands provides any returned to the ” shall remain comptroller sale shall unpaid, proceedings be initiated. There is no hint in the that a used language return before of lands assessed in April return excluded, to means referred one *14 made under the act of the words and general cover lawful return to which the can every new process The with trouble this any possibility has apply. question in an this court originated the mainly expression confining of the act of 1850 to cases after its operation enact arising ment. 23 N. Y. is no (Whitney Thomas, 581.) There doubt of the correctness of that decision upon question then at but the of the bar, effect .1850 upon .taxes assessed in 1849 lands non-resident and a return to upon not comptroller, act, was before court antó-dating at all considered. The of a trouble there was that lands non resident had been assessed as resident and returned to the. as in arrears. court held that This comptroller correctly under the law to 1850 there was no for a sale prior authority of lands assessed to an and the comptroller inhabitant, terms of the new law and provided process peculiar special which had not at all been followed and was pronounced In that the old ease prospective. wholly proceedings and the without new followed, though authority, proceedings had not been and could not have Here the. been pursued. at a came The assess effective. change possible point of 1849 was and the return valid, comptroller ment under either for so far did not statute, lawful regular they differ. The future could not on under the proceedings go law but could were intended to be conducted repealed under new and This substituted view system. is natural mischief and avoids a reasonable
statutes public consequences within the contemplation assuredly the legislature, EnsiGir et al. et al. per Fotch, Court, established defendants, their therefore, and the title,
decision of courts below was correct. should be affirmed with judgment costs.
All concur. affirmed.
Judgment motion for Upon subsequent reargument following was handed down. opinion J. A motion is made in this
Finch, after the case, filing remittitur the court below and the entry judgment that we address a to such court to thereon, vacate request and return the remittitur to a with view judgment reargu- ment of the appeal.
I have examined criticisms delivered opinion all the care of the case importance demands, with a correct desire to error which have been any may *15 but in a committed, conviction that no ending ground a exists: ordering reargument 1. is the in the It said that statute of 1882, opinion reciting
omitted the word valuable as the word qualifying improve- in ments.” As there was no the case that pretense any had valuable the not, upon improvements, prem- such literal ises that of the was act, before repetition language immaterial the in and the to totally point dispute, material of the statute was intended to be stated. purport to the Federal
2. That no reference Constitution specific the made is State Constitution true, and similar con- the broad question argued, equally to each. siderations apply Moot N. Y. 262 in Howard court did not hold (64
3. This an as that of evidence con that such making 268) said, The court-only clusive of unconstitutional. regularity, affect the that in even if that not substance, so it would were then case under consideration. the
4. It is intimated were mistaken that we saying so written on the assessor’scertificate was assessment-roll. It LXII. Sickels—Yol. al. [Nov., Bbaedneb. Manchesteb of case.
Statement an exhibit, used as assessment-roll in the copy appears If the fact in the case contrary. there is no suggestion the attached to the roll, the certificate not so, were remain the same. would the conclusion argument one two require over suggestions 5. passing Finally, to case of is called Shattuck attention no our answer, there held a defect in the We Y. 39). Bascom N. assessment. We did not speak fatal assessor’saffidavit if had, we no collision though defect as jurisdictional, in the The opinion present resulted. have authorities would fatal result of defect, not to possible is careful deny case for the cura substantial, but than rather formal it is although no any of 1882, parallel of the statute tive effect then In case. of the cited opinion form in facts other not deemed the defect was jurisdictional any delivered an condition under one of essential sense than the modified law as it Whether was so stood. jimsdictional therefore, could not with it, and, dispensed legislature could cure its omission different A very inquiry. in one defect sense jurisdictional may relatively under an of the assessors law, acting authority existing not so as it power yet respects pass legislature it is defect; statute these ¿nly curing by confusing two that a con separated, opinion seeming things, tradiction can be reached. should be costs. motion, therefore, denied, $10
All concur.
Motion denied.
George N. Manchester Philip al., Respondents, Appellant.
Braedner, one specified Where delivers to another person pay an order on a third import sum to payee, the natural the transaction that the drawee is indebted payee drawer the latter is indebted to specified, given sum and that was the payee paying as the means of securing payment of his debt.