66 N.Y.S. 573 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
The action is ejectment to recover certain premises claimed by the plaintiff as receiver of the New York and Boston Insurance Company. The plaintiff proved enough to entitle him to the possession of the premises unless the defendant successfully impeached his title. The defendant sought to do this by producing a deed made to him on the 20th of April, 1894, conveying to him certain premises which had been sold for taxes assessed against the former owner of the land. The court below concluded that this deed was sufficient to carry to the defendant the title to the land sought to be recovered and for that reason he dismissed the complaint; and the only question presented here is whether that conclusion of the court was correct.
The premises sought to be recovered were twenty-five acres of land on the north side of a certain piece of land in the town of Babylon. These twenty-five acres were, undoubtedly, included in the' description of the land that was conveyed by Quimby and by him conveyed to the corporation of which the plaintiff is receiver. The defendant claims that these twenty-five acres were conveyed to him by the tax deed lipón which he relies. The plaintiff insists not only that this deed was entirely illegal because the county treasurer had no jurisdiction, but that it is void because it is impossible from the description to locate the twenty-five acres said to be conveyed. We are satisfied that the contention of the plaintiff in that regard is correct, and that the deed is void for uncertainty.
The deed recites the act of the Legislature in reference to the collection of taxes under which the proceeding was taken, being chapter 620 of the Laws of 1873, as amended by chapter 80 of the Laws of 1875, and the authority given to the county treasurer by those statutes to sell lands for unpaid taxes. It then recites that taxes on certain parcels of land in the county of Suffolk were returned to the county treasurer as unpaid and had remained unpaid
% The land sold is “ 25 acres, north side, fronting on highway,” and - that is all the description contained in the deed, but it is said ''that, this land is “ to ,be located and laid out, however, by and at the-expense of the party of the second part,” the grantee in the conveyance. No boundaries are given; the manner in which the land is to be laid out. is not mentioned; there is no indication whether the land is to extend across the lot or to be taken.out of one corner of it, nor is there any way of ascertaining what particular portion of the whole lot is to be taken for the twenty-five acres. Under the-deed the grantee was at liberty, to. locate the land sold to hina anywhere 'on the northerly side of. this lot. In proceedings ininmhim, ' where public officers undertake to convey lands to individuals under statutory authority, -not only must all the provisions of the statute be complied with, but the lands conveyed must be so described and set apart that there can be no-question as to their situation. (Zink v. McManus, 121 N. Y. 259; Peck v. Mallams, 10 id. 509; Hill v. Mowry, 6 Gray, 551.) The supposed description' of this deed x does''not comply with any of these requirements. One with -the-
Van Brunt, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.