i Rae GEORGE B. SLOAN, é SENATOR, 21st DISTRICT. > : 1889. ‘ SOb@OOOOSOS® COG OY LL. y Cornell Law School Library TTT 3 A COMPILATION OF Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, AND CASES RELATING TO THE SYSTEM OF TAXATION IN THE STATE OF NEw YORK. PREPARED BY JULIEN TT. DAVIES, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE ON TAXATION AND RETRENCHMENT OF THE SENATE OF 1885, AND REVISED AT THE REQUEST OF THAT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF 1888, , 4 THE TROY PRESS COMPANY, PRINTERS. 1888. HEMI NOTE TO THE COMPILATION OF 1886. This compilation is the result of a suggestion of the Hon. C. P. VeppEr, Chairman for several years last past of the Com- mittee on Taxation and Retrenchment of the Senate of the State of New York. It is intended principally for the use of members of the Legislature. It is hoped that it will enable them and others to obtain a comprehensive view of the pres- ent complicated body of law affecting the assessment of prop- erty for taxation in this State, without the necessity of consulting the many volumes through which the constitutional and statu- tory provisions here collected together, are scattered. No place is here given to the provisions of law affecting only methods of collection of taxes. As questions relating to the classes of taxable property, and the methods of taxing property or the franchises of corporations are those that now demand most attention in the consideration of the general subject of taxa- tion, no effort has been made to include matter that does not seem necessary to present the existing law that governs the present determination of those questions. To assist those who desire to study the subjects here prominently put forward, in the light of the adjudications construing, explaining, limiting or expanding the letter of the law, citations of leading or important cases are given, in which the particular constitutional or statutory provision annotated has been under discussion. The “General Statement” prefixed to the compilation proper, may be useful to those who are unfamiliar with the verbiage of statutes, or unacquainted with the general features of the system of taxation in this State. It would have been impos- lif iv NOTE TO THE COMPILATION OF 1886. sible to have complied with the request of the committee before the adjournment of the Legislature of 1886, had not the com- piler been able to avail himself of the aid of Epwarp Lyman Sxort, Esq., of the New York bar, whose industry and learn- ing have been of great service in the preparation of this pamphlet. New York, April 15, 1886. JULIEN T. DAVIES. NOTE TO THE REVISED COMPILATION. At the request of the Committee on Taxation and Retrench- ment of the Senate of 1888, the compilation of 1886, a pamphlet of about 120 pages, has been revised and enlarged to the present work. The attempt has been made to increase the usefulaess of the original undertaking by adding the more important provisions, or the substance of the statutes affect- ing the collection of taxes, together with abstracts of leading or important decisions, citations of all the New York cases, of all the statutes relating to the city and county of New York, and such statutes as are necessary to illustrate the effect of judicial decisions bearing upon the assessment and collec- tion of taxes. Some cases concerning local improvements are also included, bearing upon the general principles of taxa- tion, and considerable matter of a miscellaneous character relat- ing to the general subject of taxation, has been added. A table of the statutes passed by the State subsequent to the Revised Statutes and relating to taxation is given, in which is indicated any repeal or amendments. I desire to acknowl- edge my obligations to Epwarp Lyman Snort and NaTHan Cutter, Esqs., for their valuable assistance, without which the necessary expenditure of time in the preparation of this work would have prevented its accomplishment in the midst of the. demands of practice. In the following compilation the constitutional provisions are arranged in the order in which they appear in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York. \ vi NOTE TO THE REVISED COMPILATION. The statutes of the State of New York are arranged in the following manner : The compilation is divided into a number of divisions (headed with Roman numerals), each division embracing the statutes governing the particular subject expressed in the heading. The statutes in each division are arranged in the following order : The existing provisions of the Revised Statutes of 1830 are taken as a basis, and every subsequent and existing statute is interpolated in connection with the provision of the Revised Statutes, with which it appears to be related in subject-matter. Where such an interpolation is not appropriate, the subse- quent and existing statutes are placed in chronological order at the end of the appropriate sections of the Revised Statutes, and are given the page numbers of the session laws. The Revised Statutes are referred to by the pages in the seventh edition, and also by their Chapters and Titles as originally entitled. : Where the provisions of the Revised Statutes exist as orig- inally passed, the reference is to such seventh edition. Where they have been amended, the law amending them receives the number of the page at which it appears in such edition. The reported cases are inserted immediately after the provisions to which they refer. Decisions upon the constitutionality of particular statutes are to be found in connection either with the constitutional pro- vision discussed, or with the statute adjudicated upon, and sometimes are cited in both places. Other decisions are cited or abstracted in connection with the statutory provisions under consideration in the cases respectively. November, 1888. JULIEN T. DAVIES. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1. LIST OF LATEST REPORTS CITED FROM - 2. TABLE OF CASES - - = 7 = 3. TABLE OF STATUTES - - - - - PAGE, xxi 4. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF TAXATION EXISTING IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK - - ‘ A. DEFINITION OF A TAX - - - = oi el Se B. Necessity of TaxaTION - - - Sie cay the Cc. Power OF THE STaTE IN MatTrers oF TAXATION - - D. ‘System oF TaxaTIon In New York State - - - E. Property LiaBLe to TAxaTIon IN New York Stats - Tue Puace or ASSESSMENT - ie é ‘ s 2 Tur MANNER OF ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF TAXABLE LANDS IN State or New York For THE Purposes or TAXATION H. 1-17 THE Tur MANNER OF ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF TAXABLE PERSONAL EstaTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION - - I.’ - 6 Tur Manner oF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TaxES NEEDED FOR THE Strate GOVERNMENT - -— - yo ee es le - 7 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS. J. PaGE. Tae MaNNER oF DETERMINING THE TAXES TO BE PAID BY CORPORATIONS on CaprtaL Stock AND PERSONAL PROPERTY FoR Locat TaxaTION - 8 K, MANNER OF COLLECTING Taxes Ratsep By Locan Taxation - - li L. Toe MANNER OF DETERMINING THE TAXES TO BE PAID BY CORPORATIONS FOR STATE PURPOSES. - - = - © = © © - = + 12 ® M. THe CoLLATERAL INHERITANCE Tax - - - - - - - - 15 N. REMEDIES OF THE TAXPAYER FOR ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT OR TAXATION - 15 5. COMPILATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LAW OF TAXATION, WITH CASES - - - - + = 17-362 I, Provisions of the Constitution of the United States affecting taxation in the State of New York. Art. I, sec. 8. Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises — Power to borrow money on the credit of United States — Power to regu- late commerce. Art. I, sec. 9. Migration or importation of persons and taxes thereon. Art. I, sec. 10, Ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligation of contracts — Imposts or duties on imports or exports— Inspection laws— Duty of ton- nage. Art. IV, sec. 2. Privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. Amendments, Art. V. Due process of law — Just compensation for private property taken for public uses. Amendments, Art. XIV. Privileges and immunities of citizens of United States — Due process of law — Equal protection of the Dia WSs 5 244 oie ee semensiwe aie deasetineere eee Pea elees Reka ApewNeies saewe 17-29 IL Provisions of the Constitution ofthe State of New York relative to taxation. Art. I, sec. 1. The law of the land. Art. I, sec. 6. Due process of law — Just compensation for private property taken for public use. Art. I, sec. 9. Assent requisite to bills appropriating pub- lic moneys or property for local or private purposes. Art. ITT, sec. 16. Private or local bills to embrace but one subject to be TABLE OF CONTENTS. ix PAGE. expressed in title. Art. III, sec. 18. Cases where private or local bills can not be passed — Exelusive privileges, immunities or. franchises not to be granted. Art. ITI, sec. 20. Tax laws to state the tax and object— Not sufficient to refer to other laws for this purpose. Art. ITI, sec. 21. Method of passage and quorum requisite to pass acts concerning taxes, debts, charges, appropriations of public or trust money or property and acts affecting claims of the State. Art. V, sec.8. Offices concerning inspection, etc., of merchandise, etc., abolished —Offices for the protection of public health, and interests of State in its property —Standard weights and measures. Art. VII, sec. 5. Canal debt. Art. VII, sec. 12. Debts contracted on the behalf of State — How to be authorized — Tax laws to provide for such debt— Method of passage of such laws and use of moneys raised. Art. VIII, sec. 9. Organization of cities and villages — Restriction of power of taxation, assessment and contraction of debts. Art. VIII, sec. 10. Credit or money of the State not to be - loaned — Exceptions to this. Art. VITI,sec. 11. Municipal and town aid bonds and county, city, town orvillage indebtedness— Amount thereof — Revenue bonds — Water bonds — Limitations in counties containing cities of over 109,000 inhabitants........ . 29-39 Til. The power of the State for purposes of Taxation over persons, property and business within its jurisdiction. Cases where the above principle has been stated in different forms —Cases where the general powers of the State over the subject of taxation have been treated — Power of taxation and apportionMent) «..ccscssaeanseanatawaree sd oe ev ee eee ey CawanaReeeses 39-43 IV. Real property liable to taxation in the State of New York. Lands within this State taxable — What is “‘land’’ in this State within the meaning of the tax laws— Wharves— Piers — Tele- graph lines— Railroads— Mains, pipes and tanks—Trees and underwood — Mines— Minerals — Quarries and fossils — Exce tion of the mines belonging to the State of New York — Rraie chises of railroad companies...........c0cececseceeeeccesunecues 438-46 V. Real estate exempted from taxation in the State of New York. General rules concerning exemptions — Property exempted from taxation by Constitution of this State— Lands of this State or United States—Exemption of vessels — Assessments on State il x TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE, lands— Specific instances of exemptions of property of this State and its municipalities and of the United States— Exemption of buildings for institutions of learning — Buildings for pub- lic worship — School-houses — Court-houses — Jails — Private schcols— Exemption of property of charitable institutions — Public libraries— Ministers and priests— Exemption of prop- erty exempted by law from execution—Burying grounds — Cemetery lands—Exempt homesteads— Lands sold by the State — Plank roads— Turnpike roads — Lands held by agricul- tural societies — Property of associations to erect monuments in memory of Union soldiers — Exemption of property of mem- bers of fire eompanies— Lands used for cemetery purposes — Exception in the case of the city of Rochester— Exemptions of specific cemeteries ................ seen need eee teen ween eeeeenene 46-58 VI. Personal property liable to taxation in the State of New York. Personal estate within this State taxable— What personal estate is exempt— Definition of terms personal estate and personal property — Corporate franchises — Taxation for debts due non- residents— Taxation of business capital of non-residents — Taxation of foreign corporations — Taxation of individual bankers — Taxation of the owners of debts and bonds residing Within: the; State cs cise cccce see ented d sans asmeanaweeedeaimanencer 58-66 Personal estate exempt from taxation in the State of New York. Personalty exempted by the Constitution of this State and Consti- tution of United States—Furniture belonging to buildings of institutions of learning, for public worship, school-houses, court-houses and jails — Personal property of charitable build-. ings and corporations — Personal property of public libraries — Stocks owned by the State or by literary or charitable institu- tions — Personal estate of incorporated companies — Ministers and priests — Property exempt by law from execution — Specific personal property owned by householder exempt—Tools of mechanics, household furniture, working tools and team — Pro- fessional instruments, furniture and library, these exempt when owned by a householder or one providing for a family — Excep- tions in last case—Cases where the judgment debtor is a woman— Exemption of specific property of persons in the mili- tary or naval service of the United States — Rights of action to recover damages exempt by law from levy and sale— Exemp- tion of holders of stock—Of companies liable to taxation on. their capital—Exemption of militiamen —Securities of non- residents sent into this State for collection — Agents of non-resi- TABLE OF CONTENTS. dents — Deposits in savings banks—Exemptions in life insurance companies — Exemption of the deposit of —Life or casualty insurance business upon the codperative or assessment plan— . Codéperative savings and loan associations — Personal estate of gas-light companies — Vessels and corporations owning vessels— Railroad aid bonds— Bonds and stocks of the State of New VIII. Securities of United States exempt from taxation by the State of New York. Cases connected with exemption of United States bonds — United States currency — United States notes — Treasury notes — Frac- tional currency notes— Checks of officers of United States — Certificates of indebtedness of United States — Certificates of deposits of United States ......... cece cece eee eee eee IX. Local taxation of shareholders of State and national banks and the real estate of banks. (A.) Statutes of the United States—Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States— Shares in national banking associations — Manner and place of taxing shares — Restrictions thereon — Moneyed capital in the hands of citizens ‘of the State —Shares owned by non-residents— Exemption of real property of national banking associations. (B.) Statutes of the State of New York providing for the taxation of share- holders of banks—Shares, where and how taxed — Residence of stockholders — Deductions and exceptions allowed by law — Limitation upon rate of assessment and taxation — Deduction on account of the assessed value of real estate —Statute not to be construed to exempt the real estate of banks — Real estate of banks, how subject to taxation — Notice of assessment of shares to shareholders — Cases arising prior to the present system — Cases arising under present system— Bank to keep list of share- holders and amount of shares held — Inspection of the same by taxing officers — Taxation of non-resident shareholders — Lien of taxes upon shares— Retention of dividends by banks until taxes are paid — Shareholders of State banks to be assessed and taxed the same as shareholders of national banks — Deduction of debts — Intention of act is to place shareholders of State banks on equality with shareholders of national banks......... Xi PAGE. 66-76 76-78 78-88 xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. X. Local taxation of capital stock and personal property and real estate of corporations. PAGE. What companies are liable to taxation on their capital — What capital is taxable — Taxation of franchises of savings banks — Local taxation of foreign corporations — Provisions of Revised Statutes relating generally to local taxation of corporations — Statement to be delivered by company to assessors— Contents of such statement —Statement to be delivered to the Comp- troller—Contents of such statement — Prosecution of com- panies by Attorney-General for non-payment of taxes — Method of assessing corporations — Form of assessment-roll — Personal property of corporations assessable—Cases upon the local taxation of corporations —Taxation of telegraph companies — Town assessors’ duties in respect to railroad, telegraph, tele- phone and pipe line companies— Apportionment be made by such assessors — Telegraph, telephone and electric light lines, where and how assessable and taxable— Meaning of word ‘lines ’? — Statement of last named companies to county treas- urer, ang in New York city to receiver of taxes— Taxation of mutual life insurance companies — Taxation of pipe line com- panies— Taxation of railroad companies operating foreign companies — Provisions for compelling payment of taxes by corporations — Duties of comptroller and attorney-general — Proceedings for discovery and sequestration of property to satisfy tax —Injunction and receiver —Statement by board of supervisors to Comptroller — Duties of collector— Taxes to be deducted from dividends—Return by collector—Duties of Comp- troller and Attorney-General — Proceedings for sequestration — Actions by Attorney-General to recover taxes —Supplementary proceedings against corporations in actions by or against people:of thie State 6 ce ois acsounalmassinnmnnwnent peace vara ce ees d 88-108 XI. The place in which property is to be assessed. Lands of residents and occupants — Place of assessment — Assess- ment to occupant as land of non-resident — Unoccupied and non-resident lands — Definition of ‘‘ lands of non-residents”? — Lands in two assessment districts, where assessed— Personal estate of individuals, where assessed —Agents — Trustees— Guardians—Executors or administrators—Residents—Products consigned for sale— Agents of moneyed corporations or capital- ists — Real and personal estate of corporations, where taxable — Principal office—Companies owning bridges, where assess- able — Situs of rolling stock .......00 0... ccc ccc eee eee ee eeaee 108-118 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii XIL The manner in which assessments of property of individuals are to be made, and rules for the valuation of real and personal estate. PAGE. (A.) Manner of making assessments — Assessment districts — Time of making assessments— Form of assessment-roll— Liability of assessors— Persons acting in representative character—- Trustees — Guardians — Executors or administrators — Omitted property — Lands of non-residents. (B.) Rules for the valua- tion of real and personal estate —Correction of assessments — Public notice by assessors — Time, place and manner of review of assessment by assessors upon complaint — Oath of assessors to assessment-roll—Special provisions applicable to counties containing more than 300,000 inhabitants relative to the assess- ment and collection of taxes and the legalization of certain unpaid taxes— Delivery of rolls to supervisors...........0ce00 118-143 XII. Powers of boards of supervisors and taxes on rents reserved. Examination of assessment-roll by boards of supervisors — Esti- mate of taxes by supervisors — Correction of mistakes by super- visors—Completion of rolls and their delivery to collector — Contents of warrant to collector — Duties of county treasurer— Miscellaneous cases and statutes relating to supervisors—Return by supervisors to Comptroller of amount of real and personal estate — Taxes upon rents reserved — Duties of assessors, boards of supervisors, collectors and county treasurers........ ccaecunatuiniets 143-153 XIV. Equalization by the State Board and appeals from boards of supervisors: Board of equalization, when to meet and its duties— Computation of State tax by Comptroller — Duties of proper officers in respect to collection of State tax — Appeals from boards of supervisors, manner of such appeal, and proceedings thereon— Appeals to State Assessors— Appeals from decisions of board of super- visors and equalization of assessments, manner of, and pro- coedings thereon. . i+ cccsceswnsseerasommwarewnewie seminaries is 153-160 XV. Collection of taxes. Duties of collector—Irregularity of tax roll or warrant — Payment of taxes by third parties — Payment of taxes by referees— Power of collector to make the tax trom personal property —Sale of xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE. property — Property distrained — Collection upon removal to another county —Collection by judicial proceedings — Interest on taxes— Apportionment of taxes — Payment of taxes by rail- road companies — Miscellaneous cases on collection of taxes — Collectors’ bonds — Warrants against collectors — Collectors’ fees— Extension of time for collection—Collection of taxes by sheriff — Appointment of new collector — Payments and returns by collectors — Payments by county treasurer—-Duty of comp- troller and other officers in respect to the payments and returns of county treasurers— Tax titles to real estate — Sales for unpaid taxes and the conveyance and redemption of lands sold, ete. — Miscellaneous statutes relative to sales for taxes..............-+ 160-202 XVI. State taxes upon corporations, joint-stock companies and asso- ciations. ‘ , (1.) Provisions applicable to corporations generally —The act of 1880— Reports by companies to -comptroller— Penalty in case of failure to report— Amount of tax upon companies taxable under the act — Exceptions as to savings banks, institu- tions for savings, life insurance companies, banks, fire insurance companies, manufacturing or mining corpora- tions, carrying on manufacturing or mining within this State — Gas companies — Trust companies — Payment of taxes — Taxes upon persons doing insurance business — Exception of life insurance companies and purely mutual benefit associations— Taxes upon railroad, canal, steamboat, ferry, express, navigation, transportation and elevated railway com- panies, pipe line companies, telegraph companies, telephone companies, palace car and sleeping car companies — Exemp- tion of corporations from taxation for State purposes except upon their real estate and under the statute here cited — Collection of taxes imposed by this act — Amount of capital stock which is the basis of taxation— Review by Comptroller— Examination of books by Comptroller—Settlement of accounts for taxes by Comptroller —Certiorari to review action of Comptroller — Infor- mation respecting companies taxable. (2.) Fire and marine insurance companies. (3.) Trustcompanies. (4.) Foreign Bank- ing corporations. (5.) Racing associations ...................065 202-219 XVIL. State tax on the privilege of organization. The act of 1886................ Dpabizhion aeaisancta teat bleatan ne eee 219-220 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xV XVII. Taxation of foreign insurance companies. : PAGE. i. Premium tax on foreign marineinsurance companies, 2, Foreign fire insurance companies. A. Tax on capital. B. Taxon pre- . miums. (1.) Provisions applicable to New Yorkcity. (2.) Statutes applicable generally throughout the State in the absence of special provisions. 3. Foreign life or health insurance com- panies. 4, Reciprocal act......... shaclanagretrheinond aang Wee shuns 219-229 XIX. State tax on collateral inheritances. The act of 1885, as amended by the act of 1887, with the cases construing these acts. ........... cece eee e eee eee ee enes ss eivsxe de 229-238 XX. Highways and bridges. Duties of commissioners of highways — Lands of non-residents — Estimates and assessments by commissioners of highways — Appeals by non-resident owners— Duties of overseer of high- ways—Duties of boards of supervisors— Duties of various officers in respect to highway taxes —Separate road districts — Bridges and toll-houses......... NEUREALGAG Candee aoniae; enmencnul 238-251 XXI. Taxes for common schools. The act of 1864 as amended—Title II. Common school commis- sioners, their election, powers and duties — Title III. Of State and other school monéys, their apportionment and distribu- tion, and herein of trusts and gifts for the benefit of common schools— First Article: Of State school moneys and their appor- tionment by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and pay- ment to the county and city treasurers— Title VII. Of school districts and neighborhood meetings and of choice, duties and powers of school district and‘ neighborhood officers — First Article: Of school district. and neighborhood meetings, , the voters and their powers generally —Second Article: Of district school-houses and sites— Seventh Article: Of the assessment of district taxes and the collection of such taxes and rate bills; and herein of the collector, his powers, duties and liability— Title VIII. Of school district libraries and the application of library moneys — Title IX. Of union free schools — Title XII. On appeals to the superintendent of public instruction— Title XIII. Miscellaneous provisions — Miscellaneous statutes and cases on xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. . PAGE. the subject of taxation in connection with the subject of schools — Amount of taxes to be raised — Method of assessment of taxes for schools against railroad, telegraph, telephone and pipe line companies— Taxation of forest lands and counties known as the forest PreServe......... ec eee eee cette wee eeeneces 251-272 XXII. Villages. Duties of trustees of villages in respect to taxation — Duties of col- lector — Method of assessment of taxes by trustees — Determina- tion of amount to be raised by taxation.................c0e eens 272-281 XXIII. Special laws relating to taxation in the city and county of New York. The New York City Consolidation Act of 1882 as amended — Bonds and stocks of the city of New York —Exemption of certain property from taxation — Books, etc., of commissioners of taxes are public records— Deputy receivers— Duties of deputy tax commissioners— The annual report of the assessed valuation of real and personal estate—Method of assessment — Correction of assessment by commissioners —Certiorari to review action of commissioners— Power of commissioners to remit or reduce taxes — Statement of specific property in New York city exempt from taxation — Preparation of assessment-roll— Duties of board of aldermen — Duties of receiver of taxes — Collection of taxes— Proceedings in case of failure to pay taxes — Arrears of taxes — Sales for non-payment of taxes — Redemption of lands sold for taxes —Duties of the clerk of arrears — Leases to purchaser — Redemption of lands sold—-Conveyance to purchaser of lands sold —List of statutes relating to New York city................ 281-311 XXIV. Remedies for illegal assessment and taxation. 1, Proceedings by certiorari other than under Laws 1880,Ch. 269, page 402 — Cases discussing the procedure by certiorari. 2. Certio- rari proceedings under Laws 1880, Ch. 269—Remedy by certiorari for illegality — Over-valuation — Inequality — Allowance of writ of certiorari— Return to writ— Relief that may be granted — Costs— Appeals. 3. Proceedings in equity— Cases showing when and under what circumstances relief in equity is obtain- ' able— Lands assessed in two or more counties — Statutory remedy, Laws 1870, Ch. 325 4. Proceedings by writ of man- damus. 5. Proceedings by writ of prohibition. 6. Proceedings TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvii PAGE, for the recovery and refunding of taxes and of damages. (a.) Action againsttowns. (b.) Actions against cities. (c.) Actions against counties. (d.) Actions against assessors. (e.) Actions against collectors. (f.) Proceedings in county court under Laws 1869, Ch. 855, and similar acts. (g.) Actions of replevin. (h.) Miscellaneous cases on the subjects under (6) above......... 311-351 XXV. Taxpayers’ actions at common law or by statute. Laws 1881, Ch. 531, as amended by Laws 1887, Ch. 673 —Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1925 —Cases under these statutes................ 352-359 XXXVI Tax on dogs. Provisions of the Revised Statutes —Statutes upon this subject affecting particular counties..............0-. 0. cece eee eee eee 359-360 XXVII. Various town and county charges. Provisions of the Revised Statutes —Statutes governing other town and county charges.......... ANiaeaA dae ea tRane eases -.. 860-362 Gi INDEX sien desspenuseysugavcy saa uae Tees stots tolyiess’s Svaiaiaiiee.) 363 7. ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA............ 2 ce ccc eee ee cence es 487 1 1. List of Latest Reports Cited From. The following list shows the last printed Reports, from which cases have been cited: § \ Name. s Abbott’s Now Cases......... 0c. ccc cece cece cere nsec nt eeetenenenees Albany Law Journal......... A sachet eorlubesvasinveieeots Gautehuna aa Ran Moraes ps5 5h eae Civil Procedure Reports......................8- sida lows chalaetaminners ears Dal yisv son sencd- Yo, 215: (1885) si save peu geese oy aw iaitadadeaiaawden 112 Assessors Town of Barton, People ex rel. Lincoln vs., 44 Barb., 148 (1865); S. C., 29 How. Pr., 372 (1865).............. 43, 58, 71, 77, 84, 89, 338 Assessors Town of Flushing, People ex rel. Gihon vs.,6 N. Y. State RGps, SB A886). 2.25 ce ace lawns acitmnbatnewouee sd Sesaeudweukeagees 123, 320 Assessors Town of Watertown, Bk. of Watertown vs., 25 Wend., 686 (ASAT) tant roth Wik REE et gM eds NANG od Na iat tien talndgeeapct! 88 Assessors, Van Allen vs., 3 Wall., 573 (1865); reversing S. C., sub nom, City of Utica vs. Churchill, 83 N. Y., 161 (1865)........0.......020. 79, 84 Assessors of Watertown, People ex rel. Bk. of Watertown vs., 1 Hill, BEG (1841) 3 pacers aisics ysvcinaciot boascu eaten gee aeebie ASA cmimbalaien oan ae 89 Association of Colored Orphans vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 104 N. Y., 581 (LSAT shies rae Aad tel nana Pancake uate aad oe 51, 283, 286, 290 Astor vs. Mayor of New York, 5 J. & S., 539 (1874); reversed in 39 (Uic8e Sey 2G ig hee aaes Prue al ence oa iee sehen tk 30 Astor, Matter of, 50 N. Y., 363 (1872); also, 14 N. Y. State Rep., 478 (1888) ; also, 17 N. Y. State Rep., 787 ................ 31, 231, 232, 233, 235, 226, 237 Atkins, Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. vs., 48 Hun, 456 (1888)......... 336 Attica and Arcade R. R. Co:, Metzger vs., 79 N. Y., 171 (1879)........... 356 Attorney-General vs. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 Fed. Rep’r, 129 (1887). 102 Att’y-Gen’l, Mass., Western Un. Tel. Co. vs., 125 U. S., 530 (1888)....104, 207 Austin, Hilliard vs., 17 Barb., 141 (1853)........... ccc ccccccecccceceanveus 172 Ayers vs. Lawrence (see Ayres vs. Lawrence). Aylesworth, Ward vs. 9 Wend., 282 (1832).............ccceecsee eee eeeeeee 111 TABLE OF CASES. Exili PAGE. Ayres vs. Lawrence, 59 N. Y., 192 (1874); reversing 1 Thomp. & C., QOCEN:..Dcnwoduraaiasen eosd cee seein eee ones wok oni ieintine a memameaee 355, 356 Ayres vs. Lawrence, 63 Barb., 454 (1872) (diff. pro. from 59 N. Y)........ 355 B. Babcock, Jackson vs., 16 N. Y., 246 (1857)... ..... ccc c cece e eee eee eeeeees 170 Backer, Dorn vs., 61 N. Y., 261 (1874); reversing 61 Barb., 597 (1872). .111, 122 Backus, Excise Comrs. Onondaga Co. vs., 29 How. Pr., 41 (1864)........ 61 Backus, Commissioners of Excise of Onondaga vs., 29 How. Pr., 33(1860), 61 Bailey vs. Buell, 50 N. Y., 662 (1872); reversing 59 Barb., 168........ 112, 345 Baker vs. Freeman, 9 Wend., 36 (1832)...........cc ccc cseneeeeeaeneas 344, 346 Baker vs. Lee, 41 Hun, 591 (1886)....... 0.0... cece cece ence cence en eneeeeees 265 Baldwin, Warren vs., 105 N. Y¥. 534 (1887) reversing S. C. 35 Hun, 334.... 359 _Baley vs. Wortsman, 2 N. Y. State Rep’r., 246 (1886) ...............0000e 259 Ballou, Hand vs., 12 N. Y., 541 (1855)... 02... cece cece eee e ee en teers 194, 198 B. & O. BR. R. Co., Allen vs., 114 U. S., (1884) 811.0... cece eee ees 23 Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co., Marye vs., 127 U.S., 117 (1888)........... 118 Bancroft, People ex rel. Rome, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 40 Hun, 598 (1886). .128, 129 Bank for Savings vs. Grace, 102 N. Y:, 318 (1886)....... 0.20.2... cece eens 389 Bank of Chenango vs. Brown, 26 N. Y., 467 (1863) ....................04- 278 Bank of Commonwealth vs. Mayor, etc., of New York, 43 N. Y., 184 (A BTOV oo cia stan ere el orgs acvaccuiinle a sivaietensedcha iv etnan oaieccl a Bote ceanbiaay 179, 350 Bank of Ithaca vs. King, 12 Wend., 390 (1834)............ 2 cece eee eee 240, .246 Bank of Redemption vs. Boston, 125 W.S., 60 (1888)...... 0.0... ese eee 82 Bank of Rome vs. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y., 38 (1858)............. 30, 87, 38 Bank of State of N. Y. vs. Farmers’ Branch, etc., of O., 36 Barb., 332 (LBC D)i 0 v's ss Sevate reas tos ren sianistoean telat asstapa le chai atsldiststeie wei 4 4. e Wa gies ARs ® ety ale Ginn 83 Bank of Utica vs. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 399, et seq (1834)...... 43, 84, 95, 101 161, 228, 336 Bank of Utica vs. Mersereau, 3 Barb., Ch. 581 (1848) ................... 194 Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall., 200; reversing 40 Barb., 334 (1886).............. 76 Bank of Watertown vs. Assessors Town of Watertown, 25 Wend., 686 (W841). 22s vnedanmmemewantewenenins yar sos G44 9o aoa eae OEE LEER aN ee EOE 88 Banks, Hurlburt vs., 1 Abb., N. C., 157 (1876)........... 0c. c cece eee ee eee 34 Banks vs. Mayor, 7 Wall., 16 (1868); reversing People ex rel. Nat’l. Broadway Bank vs. Hoffman, 37 N. Y¥., 9.0.00... 0. cc cece eee eee eens v Banks, People ex rel. Commissioners of Washington Park vs., 67 N. Y., 569 (816)sccscccsesneey yeaa aed dawsewelrewedloawanagenae es ¥ 255 8544 Dees 32, 34 Bank vs. Supervisors, 7 Wall., 26; reversing People ex rel. Bank of N. Y. vs. Supervisors, 37 N. Y., 21 (1876)........ cece cece eee eee eee 77 Barber, People ex rel. Seminary of Our Lady vs., 42 Hun (1886)........ 50 ‘Barhyte vs. Shepherd, 35 N. Y., 238 (1866)............. 0. cee eee ees 43, 46, 122 Barker, People vs., 48 N. Y¥., 74 (1871)... 2... ccc e cece cece eee eens 43, 106 Barker, People ex rel. Buffalo and State Line R. R. Co. vs., 48 N. Y., 70, (LBD) resid vsaeteetaeentnies 43, 89, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 126, 127, 133, 134 Barlow vs. Saint Nicholas Nat. Bank, 63 N. Y., 401 (1875)......... 43, 109, 144 Barnard vs. Brower, 17 N. E. Rep., 376 (1888); 8. C., 10 N. Y. State Rep., XXIV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Barnard, Sherman vs., 19 Barb., 291 (1855)....... 0... cscs cess eens ewer eee 36 Barnes vs. Anderson, 4 N. Y., Leg. Obs., 346 (1846)........ ccc ceeeeeeeeee 70 Barr, Powers vs., 24 Barb., 142 (1857)....... 0.66.5 cece eee eeeeee een eee nee 170 Barry vs. Edmunds, 116 U. S., 550 (1886)... 0.2... e cece cee renee 23 Barse, Ensign vs., 107 N. Y., 539 (1887) ...... 32, 138, 139, 143, 144, 149, 199, 241 Bartlett vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 5Sandf., 44 (1851)..................40. 113 Barto vs. Himrod, 8 N. Y., 483 (1853).... ce. eee eee eee cee 40 Bascom, Shattuck vs., 105 N. Y., 39 (1887).......... 0... c eee e eee eee ees 139 Bassett vs. Wheeler, 84 N. Y., 466 (1881)....... 0... cece cee cee 169 Batchellor, People ex rel. Dunkirk, W. and P. R. R. Co. vs., 55 N. Y., 198 (1873) scase tana tacecde. ut 2 ip ean eens euexcuaiad 39, 41 Baxter, Bradley vs., 15 Barb., 122 (1858)....... 00.0... cee cece eee eee 40 Beach vs. Furman, 9 Johns., 229 (1812)........ 0 cece cece eee cece een ees 345 Beach vs. Hayes, 58 How. Pr., 17 (1879)........ 0. ccc ccc cece eee e eee es 187 Beardsley, Colton vs., 38 Barb., 44 (1860)......... 0... cece scence ee ees 257, 259 Beardsley, Comstock vs., 15 Wend., 348 (1836) .......... ccc cece eee eee ee 193 Beardsley, People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. vs., 52 Barb., 105 (1868) ; affirmed in:41 Ni. V6 619 45.0 ce 3 scene deta aeeamwmoseits Me sgaeeseseseeesee 43, 56, 127 Becker vs. Becker, 47 Barb., 497 (1866). ...... 0.0... 0c cece nee eee eee ee eens 69 Becker vs. Holdridge, 47 How. Pr., 429 (1874)...... 0.0... cc cee eeee eens 195 Becker vs. Howard, 66 N. Y., 5; (1876) affirming 4 Hun, 359; reversing AT HOW P e408 see cutee choi eget ulna Added eG Oewied 47, 97, 186, 195 Beekman vs. Bigham, 5 N. Y., 366 (1851).... 0. cece eee eee eee 190, 198 Beekman, McMahon vs., 65 How. Pr., 427 (1883) .............. 1, 126, 284, 285 Beers, People ex rel. Ithaca Savings Bank vs., 67 How. Pr., 219 (LSB BY grease ook occa atetataretathvalelpe isted Aids tca ici DEO 58, 67,73, 90, 91 Beeson vs. Jahns, 37 Alb. L. J., 142 (1888)..... 0... cece cece ee nee eee 193 Bell vs. Pierce, 51 N. Y., 12. etc. (1872).... 0... cece cece ee een eee aes 112, 114 Bellinger vs. Gray, 51 N. Y., 610 (1873)...... 64, 136, 137, 146, 147, 148, 162, 343 Bellows, McMillan vs., 37 Hun, 214 (1885)......... 0. cose eee cece eee eens lil Bement vs. Plattsburg R. R. Co., 47 Barb., 109 (1866)... .............00. 116 Benedict, Farnahm vs., 39 Hun, 22 (1886)............ 0... ce cee cee see enees 358 Bender, Hilton vs., 69 N. Y., 75; (1877) reversing 2 Hun, 1.............. 186 Benjamin vs. Hull, 17 Wend., 437 (1837)............ 0... c ec ee cece ees 256, 280 Bennett vs. City of Buffalo, 17 N. Y., 383 (1848)................. eee eee 121 Bennett vs. Peck, 28 Hun, 447 (1882).......... cece cece eee cece eee eee 172, 195 Bennett, Leland vs., 5 Hill, 286 (1843)........ cece cece eect cence een eeeee 193 Benson vs. Mayor, etc., of Albany, 24 Barb., 248 (1857).................. 37 Benson, Seaman vs., 4 Barb., 444 (1848) .................c cee cece eee 257, 264 Bergh, Norsworthy vs., 16 How. Pr., 315 (1858) ..... 0.00. c cece cece eee 170 Berry, St. Louis, Iron Mountain, etc., Ry. Co. vs., 1138 U. S., 465 (1885) ee vinenuast Gn sauce woken miivaimnnnadnmearaiecnuhy ouidaienive ies ee eees 23 Bigham, Beekman vs., 5 N. Y., 366 (1851).......... 0... cece cece e ees 190, 198 Bird vs. Mayor, 33 Hun, 396 (1884)... 0... cece eee eee ccc cent nee eeeene 357 Bissell vs. Michigan South. and Northern Indiana R. R., 22 N. Y., 285 (LBRO) acc iz cis ck Haile aes aa yh ata lete neh an he us nba te de acer ca nett AL 108 Bitting vs. Vandenburgh, 17 How. Pr., 80 (1859)..................0.0 ce ee 69 Blandon vs. Moses, 29 Hun, 607 (1883)......0 00.0... ccc ce ccc cesceeaeecees 255 Blunt, Kortright vs., 12 How. Pr., 424 (1855) (see Kortright vs. Cady)... 296 TABLE OF CASES. XXV PAGE. Board of Education of Lockport, People ex rel. Lockport City Bank vs., 46 Barb., 588 (1886)........ 00. cece ccc c ence cere e een eeenees 43.76, 85 Board ‘of Edueation, People ex rel. Exchange Bank vs., 46 Barb., 598 (USCG) sete cis etietacininaai sda hind Waeclan ene Gelcletes voy pane ayenginigs 76, 85 Board of Education Union Free School vs. Mapes, 14 N. Y. State Rep., BOS (1 BSB) ten eucres uc eie.ce se Siege 5 Vidseod aud udheananaae aeecanmeousbooe aN eaaves SEES MAES 267 Bd. Supervisors, Douglas vs., 1 N. Y. Suppl., 126 (1888) ................. 116 | Boardman vs. Supervisors of Tompkins, 85 N. Y., 359 (1881)............. 115 Bohenblost, Woodhull vs., 4 Hun, 399 (1875)...... Saaladuislsteawaas rete Les 264 Boreel vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 2Sandf., 552 (1849)................. 45, 185 Borthwick, Turner vs., 20 Hun, 119 (1880)............... ccc ce ccs ee eee eee 69 Boston, Bank of Redemption vs., 125 U. S., 60 (1888).......... i oandinteves Seow 82 Bostwick, Phelps vs., 22 N. Y., 243 (1860)... 0.0... cece cece eee eee eee 45 Boughton, Savacool vs., 5 Wend., 170 (1830) ............66 cece cena 161, 346 Bouton, Hasbrouck vs., 41 How. Pr., 208 (1871); S. C., 60 Barb., 413 (187A) nce vnve vie eee ed se ese NE eee eRe AGA Kb REESE ESE ENA 68 Bowe vs. United States Reflector Co., 36 Hun, 407, 409 (1885)............ 30 Bowen, Marsh vs., 12 Abb. N. C., 1 (1881)....... 0... cece cece eee teres 124 Bowman vs. Quackenboss, 3 Code R.., 17 (1850)...........- ciara eae ott 70 Bowne vs. Witt, 19 Wend.,'475 (1838)........ 00. c ccc c eee e eee ence ee 68, 69, 70 Boyce, Matter of, 2 Cow., 444 (1824) 0.0... coc cece cece ee nee e renee 179, 336 Boyd vs. Gray, 34 How. Pr., 323 (1867)..............eceeee eet .114, 119, 162, 312 Boyer vs. Boyer, 113 U.S., 689 (1885)....... 0.0 ccc cece cece nee ee ee eeee . 81 Brackett, Osterhoudt vs., 27 Hun, 167 (1882) affirmed in 93 N. Y., 687 (CUB BS) sicscchscat neh ck Ashen score stermatets aie Bee noe ales ne Uealis wm gin ametaeeobalests 307 Brackett, People vs., 4 Wall., 459 (1886).....0 0.0... 0. ccc eee cee e eee ees 7 Brackett vs. Watkins, 21 Wend., 68 (1889)........... eee e eee ee eee eee 68, 69 Brackett, Smith vs., 36 Barb:, 571 (1862)....... 0... cc cece eee cence eee nes 54 Bradley vs. Baxter, 15 Barb., 122 (1853) ........ 00. .ce cece e eee e ee eee) 40 Bradley vs. The People, 4 Wall., 459 (1866)............6. cece eee e eee eee 78 Bradley vs. Ward, 58 N. Y., 401 (1874); affirming 1 Thomp. & C., 413 135, 145, 146, 147, 162, 344 Brevoort vs. City of Brooklyn, 89 N. Y., 128 (1882); reversing 18 Hun, BBB casas xcvessceiravel acetate esate eats “aha ovcem Nel MOR Alana acta 136, 187, 344 Brewster vs. City of Syracuse, 19 N. Y., 116 (1859)............. 0. cece ee 30, 31 Bridges vs. Superviscrs of Sullivan, 92 N. Y., 570 (1883)................. 179 Briggs, People ex rel. Rochester vs., 50 N. Y. 5058 (1872) ssiacsewonnmen ar 32 Briggs, Wright vs., 2 Hill, 77 (1841)...... 0... ccc cece eee cette eee ees 349 Brigham vs. Bush, 33 Barb., 596.(1861) ........ 00... cece eee eee eee eens 68, 70 Bright vs. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Johns., 242 (1820)............... 336 Brinckerhoff, People ex rel. Andrews vs., 40 Hun, 381 (1886)............ 351 Brit. Com. Ins. Co. vs. Coms. of Taxes, 28 How. Pr., 41, 57 (1864); S. C., 1 Abb. Ct. App., 199, etc. (1864); S. C., 18 Abb. Pr., 118 (1864); 31 N. Y,, B21BO) syn, actpruvecvesnsarS Rewinseeen ae ln sangria dented deh ockens 43, 61, 62, 108, 112. Brooklyn, etc., Ry., Matter of, 75 N. Y¥., 335 (1878)... 0....c.c.cceeeeedeas 82. Brooklyn, etc., Ry., People vs., 89 N. Y., 75 (1882)...............0c eee e ee 32 Brooks vs. Hathaway, 8 Hun, 290 (1876)..........00.cccec cee cec eee e eee ees 69 Brooks, People vs., 4 Den., 469 (1847)......0...cc cece cece cece ences eueees 18 iv XXV1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Brown vs. Houston, 114 U. S., 622, 633 (1685)... 0... cece eee eee 17, 20, 25 Brown vs. Smith, 24 Barb., 420 (1857). 0.0... e eee eee es 122 Brown vs. Witt, 19 Wend., 475 (1838).... 0.0... . cece cece cee cece eee ees 69 Brown, Bank of Chenango vs., 26 N. Y., 467 (1863)...................0.. 278 Brown, Cogsdill vs., 5 Hun, 341 (1875)..........0 0... e cece eee eee es 69 Brown, Henderson vs.,1 Caines Ca., 92 (1800)......... 0.0.0. e cece eee 160 Brown, Parker, vs., 17 Barb., 145 (1853)... 2.0.2... eee eee 264, 265 Brown, People ex rel. Martin vs., 55 N. Y., 180 (1878)................2008 339 Brown, Stewart vs., 37 N. V., 350 (1867)........cccceceee eee e ene eee e etna es 69 Brower, Barnard vs., 17 N. E. Rep., 376 (1888); S. C., 16 N. Y., State PEs id Loh Saisie Seance Son Deen Hse SiR aca a tenance dant stow sessnmuan tv Dn ERE ud neds ges 137, 139 Budd, Van Voorhis vs., 39 Barb., 479 (1868)..........0..05 sect ee eee eens 120 Buell, Bailey vs., 50 N. Y., 662 (1872); reversing 59 Barb., 158 ....10, 112, 345 Buffalo, American Transportation Co. vs., 20 N. Y., 388 (1859) note; affirming, 23 Barby Qilassccccewecs gavecspevlostwar Sy edewedeesis eds 118 Buffalo City Cemetery vs. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y., 506 (1871)........... 51 Buffalo, Union Steamboat Co. vs., 82 N. Y., 351 (1880)............... 117, 316 Buffalo and Jamestown R. R. Co., Matter of, 5 Hun, 485 (1875).......... 39 Buffalo and N. Y. City R. R., Stevens vs., 31 Barb., 618 (1858)........... 116 Buffalo and State Line R. R. Co. vs. Supervisors of Erie, 48 N. Y., 93 (LSTA areata eon varia ete ne seas a calle dees 108, 136 Buffalo City Cemetery vs. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y., 506 (1871)........... 51 Bug, People ex rel. Hoffman vs., 13 Abb. N. C., 169 (1883)...... 110, 112, 115 Bunnell, Ontario Bank vs., 10 Wend., 186, 195 (1833) ............. 88, 116, 344 Bunner vs. Eastman, 50 Barb., 639 (1867)........ 0. ccc ee eee 187, 190 Burgett vs. Fancher, 35 Hun, 647 (1885)... 00. 1. eee cence ee eee 70 Burhans, People ex rel. Ulster, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 25 Hun, 186 (1881).... 319 Burhans, Thompson vs., 61 N. Y., 52 (1874); reversing 61 Barb., 260.... 180 185, 197 Burtis, Standart vs., 46 Hun, 82 (1887) ......... 00. eee eee eens 358 Bush vs. Davison, 16 Wend., 550 (1837)........ 0... cc cece ences e ee eee 193 Bush, Brigham vs., 33 Barb., 596 (1861) ............00.cee cence eee eens 68, 70 Butler, Osterhoudt vs., 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmedin 93 N. Y., 637 (1885), 357 Butler, Stroud vs., 18 Barb., 327 (1854)........0 0... eee e cece ences 257 Butterfield, Wilder vs., 50 How. Pr., 385 (1875).......... 0.0.0 cece eeeceeees 173 C. Cady, Kortright vs., 21 N. Y., 343 (1860); reversing Kortright vs. Blunt, 12 “Hows, Priy 484,059: sen aede $444 deans pee cte ta Peh eo caaie eve Vib sedge 296 Cady, People ex rel. Haddock vs., 41 Hun, 539 (1886)................... 303 Cady, People ex rel. Townshend vs., 18 Jones & S., 399 (1884); said to be affirmed in 99 N. Y., 620 (1885)......... 6. ccc c cece eee eee eens 340 . Cager, Matter of, 46 Hun, 657 (1887); 13 N. Y. State Rep’r, 45 ........... 230 Caledonian Company vs. Trustees of Hoosick Falls,7 Wend., 508 (1832), 311 Calendar, Easton vs., 11 Wend., 90 (1833)....... 0.0... cece eens erence 253, 259 Calhoun vs. Millard, 16 N. Y. State Rep., 46 (1888) ...................... 359 California, Southern Pac. R. R. Co. vs., 118 U. S., 109 (1886).............. 28 Calkins vs. Chamberlain, 28 W. D., 292 (1888); 15S. R., 576.............. 110 TABLE OF CASES. xxvii PAGE. Campnell, People ex rel. New York Medical College vs., 93 N. Y., 196 (1883) sawosa caweeiws seeexgesuctexearee eee Waeewew Selene, RaeMaess y 288, 309 Canaan, Albany ani West Stockbridge R. R. Co. vs., 16 Barb., 244 (1853), 120 126, 135 Carpenter vs. Herrington, 25 Wend., 370 (1841)............cceeee eee eee 68 Carter vs. Greenhow, 114 U. S., 317 (1884)..... 00... cee cece eee eee ees 23 Carter, People ex rel. Warren vs., 46 Hun, 444 (1887)........... 318, 322, 324 Cartwright vs. Village of Sing Sing, 46 Hun, 548 (1887).............. 44, 280 Cassity, People ex rel. Dunkirk, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 2 Lans., 298 (1870) 46 N. Y., 46 (1871).............. 41, 45, 58, 89, 92, 101, 103, 108, 109, 110, 321 Caswell, Eastman vs., 8 How. Pr., 15 (T853)G » su etenwlegetanmeneinndeas vera a4 69 Catlin vs. Grissler, 57 N. Y., 364 (1874) Slice Beste ela Eh Mae peed se 163 Catlin vs. St. Paul’ s Church, 1N. Y., Supplt., 808 (1888); 8. C., 17 N. ¥. State Rep., 707 (1888)...... IeAinidgs dad snouts wdatemanineammoaderanehes 931 Caulkins vs. Chamberlain, 37 Hun, 163 (1885)............. cc chew eee eaeee 194 Central Trust Company vs. The N. Y. City and Northern R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. State Rep., 181 (1888), 47 Hun, 587.................. 105, 107, 211 Cerbat Mining Co. vs. State of N. Y., 29 Ec, 81 (1883)...............0.. 203 Chadwick vs. Crapsey, 85 N. Y., 196 (1866)...........0...000.0000- ”....258, 260 Chaffin vs. Taylor, 114 U.8., 309 (1884); 116 U. S., 567.................... 23 Chamberlain vs. Taylor, 36 Hun, 24 (1885)........... 34, 138, 144,.192, 199, 241 Chamberlain, Calkins vs., 28 W. D., 292 (1888); 15S. R.,576............. 110 Chamberlain, Caulkins vs., 37 Hun, 163 (1885)... 0.0.0.0... 0.00 e cece eens 194 Chamberlain, Marsh vs., 2 Lams., 288 (1870)......... ce cece eee e eee eens 58 Chamberlin, Hutchinson vs., 11 N. Y. Leg. Cas., 248 (1853)........ 68, 69, 70 Chamberlin, Jones vs., 21 N..Y. Weekly Dig., 537 (1885).......... 0.2... 243 Chapin, People ex rel. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. vs., 103 N. Y., 635, and see 39 Hun, 230, and 7 N. Y. State Rep., 871 (1886)................ 340 Chapin, People ex rel. Millard vs., 40 Hun, 386 (1887); reversed in 104 INE V2 96 (188 Qin saci ccacentitcdeteeePvenueyeide eiranba wesacaan aceite Mean 195, 340 Chapin, People ex rel. N. Y., 0. & W. Ry. Co. vs., 3 N. Y. State Rep., (28, (1886) 2 ccnnemctacen benleaes wos Gass C444 G49ee EERE a EME Eee tae ee eee 211 Chapin, People ex rel. Ostrander vs., 46 Hun, 383; 15 N. Y. State Rep., 76: 105 N. Y., 809 (1887) 000.00 coe e cece ce eeae eee veaeeeveeuaaes 196, 340 Chepin, People ex rel. Wright vS., 38 Hun, 272 (1885); 104 N. Y., 369 (LGBT) acetal al reece tage Race mate dee Rubee Serhachereatee 192, 196, 320 Chapman vs, Gates, 54 N. Y., 182 (1878)......... 00 cece cee cece cence eee na ees 30 Chardavoyne, Matter of, 5 Dem., 466 (1887)................... 2. 230, 234, 237 Chatham, People ex rel. Sodus Bay, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 45 Hun, 6 (1887); 0 ADs: NiO) 48 ayia iecs acne s os bean oo i dea eaawuun india econnde auld Aew ate 321 Charleston, Murray Vez 96. Ui iS, S82810) wcckereeraens me sees wea ae 59 Chegaray vs. Jenkins, 3Sandf. Supr, Ct., 409 (1850); affirmed on smother ground in 5 N. Y., 376 (1851)......0. 0.0 cece eee eee ee eee 48, 49, 66, 161, 290 Chegaray vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 13 N. Y., 220 (1855); reversing S, C., 2 Duer, 5291853). <5: ssscea ssn ssineeeaecatenaedeiy aes was eas 4 49, 66 Chesapeake and Ohio R. R. Co. vs. Miller, 114 U.S., 176 (1885).......... 28 Chesebrough Manuf. Co. vs. Coleman, 44 Hun, 545 (1887)................ 118 Chicago, Ducat vs., 10 Wall., 410 (1870)........... cece cece ees Rare tn ey: 220 Chicago and Kansas City R. R. Co. vs. Guffey, 122 U. S., 561 (1887) ..... 24 XXVili TABLE OF CASES. PAGE, Chichester, Keeler vs., 18 Wend., 629 (1835)....... 02.0.6 cece cece eee ees 263 Childs, McGiveney vs., 41 Hun, 607 (1886)........ 0.0... cece cece eee 69 Christie, People ex rel. Eckerson vs., 14 N.Y. State Rep., 525 (1888)...... 324 325, 326 Church, Matter of, 92 N. Y., 1 (1883).......... cece cece cee cee eee ee eee 30 Church of St. Monica vs. Mayor, ete., of N. ¥., 13 N. Y. State Rep’r., BOS USS) as was anes eeaintatlnt nate lands sliaeumiortira ee eee a RE RAS Le 49, 289 Churchill, City of Utica vs., 33 N. Y., 161; reversed in 8. C., sub nom., Van Allen vs. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573; see 43 Barb., 550 (1865)........ 79 Churchill, Utica vs., 33 N. Y.,161; affirming 43 Barb., 550 (1865); over- ruled in part by First Nat. Bk. of Sandy Hill vs. Fancher, 48 N. Y., BOA (STD) x oedunewracenee mua ale'eale ds elvis elgg nyu. na Hs te gals pea RUN etcaecamielonene 84 City of Brooklyn, Brevoort vs., 89 N. Y., 128 (1882); reversing 18 Hun, DO sraies Ab dacohoal wegusees capesneseiaceonie Ramu GAM AATRETO PAs PARE ARES Se ROS 136, 187, 344 City of Brooklyn, Genet vs., 99 N. Y., 296 (1885).......... 00.0 cece eee eee 30 City of Brooklyn, Guest vs., 8 Hun, 97 (1876); affirmed in 69 N. Y., DOG vis ales sia re egeh nas Dewehiea a dwa@audoaaresgieg 6 ooo 8 ae wee feeds 34, 829, 333 City of Brooklyn, Kane vs., 15 N. Y. State Rep., 872 (1888). ieee 181, 140, 143 City of Brooklyn, Nassau Gas Light Co. vs., 89 N. Y., 409 (1882) ; affirm- Ine 25. FUN; 560 ccscdacagiasen ans taktetees Gsacae et ennereeeeaseress 206 City of Brooklyn, White vs., 5 N. Y. State Rep., 868 (1886) .............. 351 City of Buffalo vs. Le Couteulx, 15 N. Y., 451 (1857)......... asaseehiaite’ 21, 22, 152 City of Buffalo, Bennett vs., 17 N. Y¥., 383 (1858)... . 0.0... cece eee eee eee 121 City of Buffalo, Buffalo City Cemetery vs., 46 N. Y., 506 (1871) ........-. 51 City of Buffalo, Heywood vs., 14 N. Y., 534 (1856).................04. 327, 329 City of Buffalo, Rumsey vs., 97 N. Y., 114 (1884)................... 02 e ae 334. City of Buffalo, Tifft vs., 8 N. Y. State Rep., 325 (1887).................. 335 City of Buffalo, Wells vs., 80 N. Y., 253 (1880); affirming 14 Hun, 438... 333 City of Charleston, Murray vs., 96 U. S., 432 (1877); distinguished from People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins, Co. vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 76 IN og 64 STON es eicivaGis ote Cigalden cata die nagee edule ea diet a keaaeies Rawat 59 City of Elmira, National Bank of Chemung vs., 53 N. Y., 49; reversing 6 Dian 2, ALG (UBT) sitesi seh Aertel en ala lg 2 se Oa ees 84, 135 City of Oswego, People ex rel. Oswego Canal Co. vs., 5 Hun, 117 (1875); 6 Thomp, & ©.;'673 (1875)s « oseus-ciadda dees sve sudersenseeenees 96, 97, 134 City of Poughkeepsie, Swift vs., 37 N. Y., 511 (1864)................ 332, 345 City of Rochester vs. Town of Rush, 15 ‘Hun, 239; reversed in 80N. Y., BOD (1 BSO) an soir aha Grea Gg saa Ss AS area ares Rl coal amraepoeg een aren onipa bs 47, 342 City of Rochester, Clark vs., 13 How. Pr., 204; reversed in 24 Barb., 446 (1851); see 28 N. Y., 605.0... 2... e eee ees dindeioedg 37, 40 City of Rochester, Clark vs., 24 Barb., 446 (1857)........0......0..00000- 37 City of Rochester, Commercial Bank of Rochester vs., 42 Barb., 488 (1864)9. S66 41 N 5. Yixg 619 ccncscmaiunmann waniiend iy ae ccs s Dew anwirewcns 342 City of Rochester, Monroe County Savings Bank vs., 37 N. Y., 365 (1867), 76 90 City of Syracuse, Brewster vs., 19 N. Y., 116 (1859)..................0 30, 31 City of Syracuse, Everson vs., 29 Hun, 485 (1883) ; reversed on another ground in 100 N. Y., 577 (1885) sya ey BIH aw Bail ca Regt Soa TRE 121, 165, 343 City of Syracuse, McLanghan vs., 18 Hun, 259 (1879)...............000. 162 TABLE OF CASES. xxix PAGE. City of Troy, Moran vs., 9 Hum, 540 (1877)........cccceececeeeeeeeneeeeee 30 City of Utica vs. Churchill, 33 N.Y., 161 (1865) ; roversedinS. C. subnom., Van Allen vs. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573. See 43 Barb., 550 (1865)...... 19 City of Utica, Bank of Utica vs., 4 Paige, 399 et seq., (1834).43, 84, 95, 101, 161 : "328, 336 City of Utica, Mann vs., 44 How. Pr., 334 (1872)......... 00. cece eee ween ee 30: Clark vs. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 181 (1877); said to have been affirmed in 75 N, Y., 612 (1878)....... is ci ucaie ase atesee a te is heuineyan ene a tesa 327 Clark vs. City of Rochester, 13 How. Pr., 204; reversed in 24 Barb., 446 (1857). (See 28 N. Y., 605)............... Uniden ew everraeenute aaron 37, 40: Clark vs. Davenport, 95 N. Y., 477 (1884); affirming 30 Hun, 161 (1883), 192, 197, 332: Clark vs. Hallock, 16 Wend., 607 (1887).......... Siemniatie vo oaarea non a sialedartees 256. Clark vs. Norton, 49 N. Y¥., 243 (1872); affirming 58 Barb., 434, 436 (1871), and 3: Dans) :484 oc ccnsauswenseaene memeweeowe ee 43, 55, 71, 112, 119, 131, 132: Clark vs. Sheldon, 106 N. Y., 104 (1887)........ 0.0.00 cee ce cn eee seen eeeeee 150. Clarke vs. Mayor, ete., of N. Y., 13 N. Y. State Rep’ r, 290; 8. C., 28 JI.&S., 259 (B88) scene caida oman eae amneniatiremertenan: amine” 303, 351 Clapp, Thomas vs., 20 Barb., 165 (1855)... 0.02. e eee eee 162, 258, 265 Clementi vs. J: ncleaon, 92 IN. ¥i5 B9L (1883) oc secs cease soeresmereere 189, 340: Cleveland, Finch vs., 10 Barb., 290 (1851) ........... cee e eee eens ... 254, 270: Clute, Mohawk and Hudson R. R. Co. vs., 4 Paige, 394 (1834). .59, 95, 101, 116. 328. Coes: Errol, 116: U..8.5 517 (W886); co senior aevicews de oewa cea seule eae en 20. Cogsdill vs. Brown, 5 Hun, 341 (1875).. 00.0... eee ccc cee enone 69: Cogswell, Matter of, 4 Demarest, 248 (1885)........... Aodind sOvkaa eRe ces 232 Cole vs. Johnson, 10 Daly, 258 (1881)........ 00... eee eee n ee eens enna 25 Cole vs. La Grange, 113 U.S., 1 (1885)... 0... eee e cece ert e eee 25 Cole vs. Stevens, 9 Barb., 676 (1851); S. C., 6 How. Pr., 424 (1851)...... 69, 70- Colman vs. Shattuck, 62 N. Y., 348 (1875); affirming 2 Hun, 497; 5 Thomp. & C., 84........: 137, 146, 180, 182, 187, 188, 191, 194, 240, 241, 245 Coleman, Cheseborough Mfg. Co. vs., 44 Hun, 545 (1887)................ 118: Coleman, Inman vs., 37 Hun, 170 (1885) ieee ateea axeaunsntacenaiudee banen mere innyama 135, 169 Coleman, People ex rel. Adams vs., 41 Hun, 307 (1886)................... 320: Coleman, People ex rel. Hanover Fire Ins, Co. vs., 44 Hun, 47 (1887). . 92: Coleman, People ex rel. Knickerbocker Fire Ins. Co., 44 Hun, 410; affirmed in 107 N. Y., 541 (1887). 0.0.0... cece cece cece eee e eee es 100: Coleman, People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. vs., 16 N. Y. State Rep. 135 (1888); 1 N. ¥, Supi 11 Bs iis vecwsceenvlae al sionsersinccis 78, 281, 322, 324, 326. Coleman, People ex rel. Merchanis Natl. Bank vs., 41 Hun, 344 (1886)... 320: Coleman, People ex rel. Neustadt vs., 42 Hun, 581 (1886).......-.... 115, 286 Coleman, People ex rel. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. vs.,1 N. ¥.Suppl., 551 (USES) st rccscicts static tera ante ntedeerisecc ora geuciatenseeelctab ayaa ee tens 987, 320, 322, 324. Coleman, People ex rel. Strauss vs., 44 Hun, 20 (1887).............eceeeee 66. Colton-vs. Beardsley, 38 Barb., 44 (1860) rsepibidioisisea aasiaueesh usage SCORES 257, 259 ‘Colonial Life Assur. Soe, vs. Supervisors of N. Y., 24 Barb., 166 (1856); 4 Abb. Pr., 84; 18 How. Pr., 305..........c sce c cece cece eee tenn ee nnnes 338: Columbia Ins. Co., Matter of, 3 Abb. Ct, App. Dec., 239 (1866).......... 162, Columbian Mfg. Co. vs. Vanderpoel, 4 Cow., 556 (1825)....... Oh aries 55, 88: XXX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Comins vs. Supervisors of Jefferson, 3 Thomp. & C., 296 (1874) ; affirmed in,.64 N.. ¥.;626 (1876). ccesccsrioneneeasyaeadestaeeedasedeg ka eve gare srs 356 Commercial Bank of Rochester vs. City of Rochester, 42 Barb., 488 (1864), See.41 N. Vig 619 .cccsvnannatnnne najeernaceeweeeci peer eceaes 342 Commr’s, Memphis R. R. Co. vs., 112 U.S., 609 (1884)...............005. 23 Commr’s of Albany, People ex rel. Williams vs., 2 Hun, 587 (1874). .126, 129 Commissioners of Excise of Onondaga vs. Backus, 29 How. Pr., 33 (1864), 61 Commr’s of Taxes, Brit. Com. Ins. Co. vs., 28 How. Pr., 41, 57 (1864); §.C.,1 Abb. Ct. App., 190, etc. (1864); S. C., 18 Abb. Pr., 118 (1864); SLING V2,82 (1865) ece3. isonet en ced. whale alae evel Glaiaae (ved 43, 61, 62, 108, 112 Commissioners of Taxes, British Commercial Life Ins. Co. vs., 28 How. Pr., 41 (1882)..... Aieaswoils Pwaeie'G wees aid Warring eae nen ba Oho ece gran 62 Commr’s of Taxes, Insurance Companies vs., 17 How. Pr., 208 (1858). .43, 92 Commissioners of Taxes, International Life Assurance Soc, vs., 28 Barb:, 9181858). sg occeccd one cadiu coowegetncenennautacdcgs 43, 62,76, 90, 92 Commr’s Taxes, Pacific S. S. Co. vs., 46 How. Pr., 319-343 (1873)........ 43 Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Academy of the Sacred Heart vs., 6 Hun., 109 (1875); affirmed in 64 N. Y., 658 (1876) ............. 49, 66, 314 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. American Fire Ins. Co. vs., 28 Hun, 261-882) sacteis a ecaet ted Vash ened dense dameunedialcatialiies 101 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. American Geographical Soc. VS AT HUD, 5051S 7D asec Ade gua narelos vais oo hac eeluade tele wumsndennne tae 67 Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Babbitt vs., 41 How. Pr., 459 (1871)... 77 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Bank of Commerce vs., 40 Barb., 335; reversed on another point, 2 Wall., 400 (1863); also, 2 Black., 620; 26 N. Y., 163 (1863) ........... cece cee eee 43, 53, 76, 83, 94 Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., People ex rel. Bank of Gommon- wealth vs., 2 Black., 620; reversing 23 N. Y., 192 (1861); 32 Barb., 509 (1860) 20 How. Pr., 182, and S. C., 18 id., 245...... 17, 50, 76, 78, 89, 94, 135 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Bank of Montreal vs., 59 N. Y., 40 (1874); reversing 1 Thomp. & C., 630............. cece cece eee eee 63 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Broadway, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 1 Thomp. & C., 635 (1873); 8. C., 46 How. Pr., 227...........0.0000008 97 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Campbell vs., 38 Hun, 536 (BBG) sees cesar Gator eee keane ee Be eae a eco oe eee eE ANY 116 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Caswell vs., 17 Hun, 293 (1879), 115 Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Coudert vs., 31 Hun, 235 (1883)........ 316 Commr’s of N. Y., People ex rel. Darrow vs., 33 Daly, 933 (1888)........ 66 Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., People ex rel. Davies, vs., 47 N. Y., O11 872) secs rvs cries Senha csseciciel deaberetevitatatcee Cosa laste evtgurta woeusle ae 22, 31 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Eastern Trans, Line vs., 26 Hun, 446 (1882)... 00. .ececc cece ccc e ee ceeeeenee eee eec eee ces ‘eae 204, 215 Commr’s, Tax, People ex rel. Eno vs., 10 Abb. N. C., 35 (1881) ...... 287, 316 Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Ferrez vs., 42 Hun, 569 (1886)........ 73 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Gallatin Nat. Bank vs., 67 N. Y., 516; affirming 8 Hun, 536 (1876); S. C., 4 Otto, 419 (1876) ...... 79, 85, 126 Commr’s of N. Y., People ex rel. Gerry vs.,5 N. Y. State Rep., 311 (1886), 317 323 Commissioners, People ex rel. Haneman vs., 85 N. Y., 655 (1881)........ 316 TABLE OF CASES. xxxi PAGE. Commr’s, People ex rel. Haneman vs., 10 Hun, 255 (1877); affirmed in 8. C., 73 N. Y., 607 (1878), and in 104 U.S., 466 (1881).............4. 19, Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., People ex rel. Hanover Bank vs., St Barb:; 635 (1862) candy cyeads <344 54 ¢ seas ses soy eee aware gare 18, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Hoyt vs., 23 N. Y., 224 (1861); reversing 33 Barb., 116, and affirming 21 How. Pr., 385 (1861) 43, 61, 65, 73, 74, 108, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Kennedy vs., 35 N. Y., 423, et seq. (1866) ; 8. C., 4 Wall., 244 (1866) ....... 00... e eee 61, 76, 78, 79, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Law vs., 9 Hun, 609 (1877)..... % Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Leonard vs,, 90 N. Y., 63 (1882). Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Insurance Co. vs., 16N Ye; 64 (1879) sess core sas acy odes ye oes you seases 59, 76, 93, 95, 101, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Metropolitan Bank vs., 43 Bars; 494 (RGB) sees yiein snp ea tus tee 2 oaOR Mnman BaeaKiciben mmieionaee Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Mutual Union Tel. Co. vs., 99 N. Y., 254 (1885); affirming 31 Hun, 568.............. 93, 103, 131, 320, Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. vs., 82 N. Y., 459 (1880); affirming 19 Hun, 460 (1879)...................05- 43, 44, 67, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. N. Y. and Harlem R. R. Co. vs., 23 Hun, 687; 101 N. Y., 322 (1886) .........0. cee eeee eee eee ees 45, 109, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Osgood vs., 99 N. Y., 154 (1885) ; affirming 34 Hun, 506 (1885)...... 0.0... eee e cece cece e eee e eee 123, Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. vs., 46 How. Pr., 315 (1873) ; 47 How. Pr., 170 (1874); 1 Thomp. & C., 611; also, 58 N.Y., 242 (1874); affirming 1 Hun, 143.................... 43, 75, 94, Comumr’s of Taxes of N. Y., People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. 8. Co., vs., 64 .N. Y., 541 (1876); affirming 5 Hun, 200...... ada beeen tom 90, 95, Commissioners of Taxes, People-ex rel. Panama R. R. Co. vs., 104 NWN 940 BBY) saeraw ia ineieewisvons Mebecoseaeauas 45, 59, 98, 99, 101, : Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Parker Mills vs., 23 N. Y., 242 (BGI) tees rete Stet Othe Jane ens ttc mal See tetera ety ale 62, 112, Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. St. John’s College vs., 10 Hun, 246 LOTT eis vie kisses nigachececcirea yn ciaeie teks Boece sc dated ose cesta Sek 48, 66, Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Second Ave. R. R. Co. vs., Daily Reg., IN.GV229: (B88) ss cae tenes ous Heletals denarii nines abaaidneuidateut jadveuw aes Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Smith vs., 100 N. Y., 915 (1885) ; reversing S. C. as Com., People ex rel. Smith vs., 36 Hun, 359...... Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. J. W. Smith vs., 10 Hun, 207 (STD) seed t aaah otis SUL ten bameb nom ae!, aides Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel, A.“Smith vs., (as to costs of appeal), 101 INE Vie B51 BRO) aes ates wea anes apse an Need ener honed x ciece teow ag een e da Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Swiss Haney. Soc. vs., 36 Hun, SIE (US85) cad uitrackwecamsacdue Geaerseduntigr aes Ge eee « oeea ee eee eauees Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Tradesmen’s Nat. Bank vs., 69 N. Y., 91 (1877); reversing 9 Hun, 650.............. ceeseeaceeeues Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Trowbridge vs., 4 Hun, 596 (1875); affirmed in 62 N. Y., 630........... ccc cee cece ee cues eevee 43, 71, 94, 24 77 4 113 85 315 76 327 315 312 323 110 318 136 97 97 318 135 290 287 115 45 825 52 85 101 XXxii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Commissioners of taxes, People ex rel. Twenty-third Street R. R. Co. 78), QGUN.. Vi.) BDL (1684)... caesar cd st aoreee ues tauiaterwane gas 46, 98, 100 Commr’s of Taxes, People ex rel. Twenty-third Street R. R. Co. vs., 91 N. Y., 593 (1883); affirming, 31 Hun, 640 (1883) ...... 203, 210, 286, 323 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. U. S. and Brazil 8. 8. Co. vs., 48 Barbs; 15% 1866) ncccces atte sis ssaaweie sions eet es Rea eee ts 19 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Van Nest vs., 80 N. Y., 573 (1880), 98 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. Valentine vs., 41 Hun, 373 (1886) ; affirming, 17 Abb. N. ©., 376, note....... cc eee eee eee eee 284, 288 Commissioners of Taxes, People ex rel. West Side and Yonkers Ry. Go; V8i5 31 Fin; 82.1883) cose caw es tae ceo seeee sees e veterans ses 98 Commr’s, People vs., 4 Wall., 244 (1886); S. C.,6 Am. Law Reg. [N.8.], 9AG* atid $60:94 U.S ., 1b asics eesisacag teas dos deeaas tber gece se ieee de ey 79 Commissioners, People vs., 104 U. S., 466 (1881); affirming, 10 Hun, 255 AN 73 NG: Ving O00 seiscieiitcioes Sivayictd nen ey Catan Deda seNeM Nm RS KeAES 19 Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, People vs., 107 U.S., 59 (1882), 18 21, 25 Comstock vs. Beardsley, 15 Wend., 348 (1836)......... 0.0.00 cece eee eee eee 193 Conklin, Matter of, 36 Hun, 588 (1885)....... 0... cece eee c ee eee ee eee 169 Cook vs. Newman, 8 How. Pr., 523 (1853) ........ 6.0 cee cece eee eens 54 Cook vs. Pennsylvania, 97 U. 8., 5661878) ccdanameuiamumianrnaneaamarcrs 19, 24 Cook, Allen vs., 26 Barb., 374 (1858). d BiesG bie shat hafereer en als oe A aaike We Sate ois 54 Cook, People ex rel. Martins vs., 10 N. Y. State Rep., 650 (1887)......... 219 Cook, People ex rel. Schurtz vs., 47 Hun, 467 (1888)............... 000 e eae 219 Cook, Strang vs., 47 Hun, 46 (1888)............ 0c cece cece eee 196, 359 Cooper, Hinckley vs., 22 Hun, 253 (1880)........... 0c ccc eee cee ees 187 Cooper, Matter of, 28 Hun, 515 (1883) ....... 2.20.22. 0 cece cence eee cere eee 32 Cornell vs. Woodruff, 77 N. Y., 203 (1879) 2.2... ccc ccc cece ene cee e eee eee 163 Cornes, Gordon vs., 47 N. Y., 608 (1872) ......... cc cece eee e eee 81, 41, 346 Corson vs. Maryland, 120 U. S., 502 (1887).......... ce cece eee ee eee eee eeee 21 Cottrell, Van Rensselaer vs., 7 Barb., 127 (1849); affirmed in San. Seld. - IN OG 05 oe Co vrei ais Taare A ee os 108, 109, 344 Courter, Grant vs., 24 Barb., 232 (1857) shdien ciceyeyancaeeSh rete aeiatareis atte eee 29, 37 County of St. Mateo vs. Southern Pac. R'y Co., 13 Fed. Rep’r., 145, 722 (1BBO) is ao vic At geek OR a che eld oie als ead aot eka Sates 26 County ‘of Santa Clara vs. Southern Pac. R’y Co., 18 Fed. Rep’r, 385 (1883); 118 U. S. 394 (1886)...0. 0... e ccc eee ee eeeeeceeeeeaee 26, 28 Cox vs. Stafford, 14 How. Pr., 519 (1857).......... cece cece cere ene eeee 69, 70 Cox et al., as Assessors, etc., People ex rel. Brodie vs., 14 N. Y. State REP, :632 (BBB) oak sic. ed cdankeneanekiaenes Ose aoe See eee e la tee dkenede oes 116 Craft vs. Curtis, 25 How., 163 (1863) ....... 0... cece cece ence eee e eee eneeee 70 Cramer, Temple Grove Seminary vs., 98 N. Y., 121 (1885); affirming 26 Hun 309+ ss vaeieeaeeamanebarbed 185 KeaNk 446 Ee dase eed wees 50, 334 Cramer, Thorne vs., 15 Barb., 112 (1851)........ 00... cece ence ener ee eeees 40 Crapsey, Chadwick vs., 35 N. Y., 196 (1866)... 0.2... cece eee cece 258, 260 Crispell, Myer vs., 28 Barb., 54 (1858)............... Stade ania mamihonine 254, 269 Crissey, Smith vs., 13 Abb. N. C., 149 (1883)........ 0... cece eee ee eee eee 357 Crooke vs. Andrews, 40 N. Y., 547 (1869)..........ccc cee ccceseceee eee nceee 330 Cropsey, Wheeler vs., 5 How. Pr., 288 (1850).........-- see es eee ce cee 69 TABLE OF CASES. XExili PAGE. Orosby, Hitt vs., 26 How. Pr., 413 (1864) ......0 0... cece ee eeeees wee. 61, 114 Crouch vs. Hayes, 27 Hun, 222 (1887) ......... 0.0. ccc ec cece cece cee eee 188, 197 Cruger-vs. Dougherty, 43 N. Y., 107 (1870)......... 0c. cece cence cee e eee 152 Crysler, Stewart vs., 100 N. Y., 378 (1885) ; reversing in effect 21 Hun, 285, 109 110, 335 Curtis, Craft vs., 25 How., 163 (1863)........0. 0. cc cece ee cee eeeenecnveues 70 Curtiss vs. Follett, 15 Barb., 337 (1853) .....................0.+++ 187, 190, 194 Cutler, Magee vs., 43 Barb. , 239 (1864).......... 0... cece ee cee eens 812, 342, 355 D. Dains vs. Prosser, 32 Barb., 290 (1860).............. diet raat eemncaes 69 Daly vs. Sanders, 9 N. Y. State Rep., 794 (1887) ................... eee ee 296 Danks vs. Quackenboss, 3 Den., 594 (1847).........0.0 ccc cu eee e ec eeeeee 70 Darlington vs. Mayor of New York, 31 N. Y., 164, 185 (1865) ............ 36 Davenport Bank vs. Davenport, 123 U. S.,'83 (1887) ................0. eee 82 Davenport, Clark vs., 95 N. Y., 477 (1884); affirming, 30 Hun, 161 (1883), 192 197 Davenport, Davenport Bank vs., 123 U. S., 83 (1887)..........0.. ceeeeee 82 Davenport, Mayor, etc., of N. Y. vs., 92 N. Y., 604 (1883)........ 154, 156, 183 Davenport, New York, Ontario and Western R. R.‘Co. vs., 65 How. Pry, 484. (1883) saniwesxeweenenwucaweyrtes m5 sees eee ped Baum ae ese dcceeanitoseniascane 334 Davenport, People ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. vs., 91 N. Y., 574 (1883); affirming 25 Hun, 630 (1881)............. 46, 101, 127, 134, 206, 210 Davis vs. Peabody, 10 Barb., 91 (1850).......... 0.2 c cece cece cence cae eee 70 Davis, Duntley vs., 42 Hun, 229 (1886)... 2.2... e cece eens 263 Davis, Rice vs., 7 Lans., 393 (1872)....... 06. c cece cece cece eee en eeeeeee 54 Davis, Shaw vs., 55 Barb., 389 (1870)....... 0... cece cece cece cece ene eeee 68 Davis, Snyder vs., 1 Hun, 350 (1874); 8. C., 3 T. & C., 596 (1874).......... 70 Davison, Bush vs., 16 Wend., 550 (1887)....... 2... cece cence cence eee eee 193 ' De Graw, Lott vs., 30 Hun, 417 (1883)........0 2.0... cece cere 186 Delancey, Matter of, 52 N. Y., 80 (1878)............. Moadne saiwaere irate 30 Delaney; People ex rel. Marsh vs., 49 N. Y., 655 (1872)..............00.. 314 Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. vs. Atkins, 48 Hun, 456 (1888).... .... 336 Dennis, Vicksburgh, S. and P. R. R. Co. vs., 116 U. S., 665 (1886)....... 24 Denniston, Fellows vs., 23 N. Y., 420 (1861)............ccece cece ee euee 56, 170 Devendorf, Weaver vs., 3 Den., 117 (1846)....... 2.2... cece cece eee eee ees 53 Devlin vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 63 N. Y¥., 8 (1875)... 0... cece eee eee 32 Dewey vs. Supervisors of Niagara, 62 N. Y., 284 (1875); reversing, 2 Hun, 392 (1874) .... ecg ccc ee eee ee cece sees Racal adden nee 97, 294, 348 De Wolf vs. Watterson, 35 Hun, 111 (1855)... 00... 0c ccc ec e cee een e ees 255 Dike vs. Lewis, 4 Den., 237 (1847); further decision in 2 Barb., 344...... 190 Dinehart vs. Wilson, 15 Barb., 595 (1853). ........ 0.0. cc ce ee eeee eee ceeees 165 Dingman, Hamlin vs., 5 Lams., 61 (1871).......... 0. sce e eee eee cee eies 254, 258 Dixon, People ex rel. Rome and Watertown R. BR. vs., 8 Hun, 178 (1876), 126 ‘ 315 Dodge, Robinson vs., 18 Johns., 351 (1820),......... ofa das tohedandetdeiuatiase tats 256 v XXXIV TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Dolan, People ex rel. Cagger vs., 36 N. Y., 59 (1867); overruled in 100 U. S., 539 (1879), People ex rel. Williams vs. Weaver ..... 78, 85, 89, 106 Dolloway, Oswego Starch Factory vs., 21 N. Y., 449 (1860), 89, 92, 96, 101 117, 135 Donahue vs. O’Conor, 45 Jones & S., 278 (1879).......cccceeeeeee 198, 304, 308 Doolittle vs. Doolittle, 31 Barb., 512 (1860)...........ccce nce eee e eee e eee 258 Dorn vs. Backer, 61 N. Y., 261 (1874); reversing 61 Barb., 597 (1872)..111, 122 Dorn vs. Fox, 6 Lans., 162 (1871), 65 N. ¥., 264 (1874).............06, 108, 332 Dorwin vs. Strickland, 57 N. Y., 492 (1874)........cccceeeseeceeeeceneeees 123 Dougherty, Cruger vs., 43 N. Y., 107 (1870)..... ease piaseoiaubiatessicrasiscaehens 152 Doughty vs. Hope, 3 Den., 594 (1847); affirmed in 1 N. Y., 79 (1847), HOw Casi 5 200. icy ccacscsreed mannan gasciae Hass se RAR AGAree we ee os 161, 194 Douglass vs. Bd. Supervisors, 1 N.Y. Suppt., 126 (1888).............0.065 116 Douglas vs. Mayor, etc., of New York, 2 Duer, 110 (1853).,............. 113 Dowdney vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 54 N. Y., 186 (1873) .......... Saksteavies . 296 Downing vs. Rugar, 21 Wend., 178 (1839) .........eccee cece cence ee ee eee 161 Dows vs. Village of Irvington, 66 How. Pr., 93 (1883);13 Abb. N. C., TGACUBBS) ses discos coke cercsd elias asicasa teneapasernundes alain aria lay Sadunnemm ee IeG 357, 359 Drake vs. Shurtliff, 24 Hun, 422 (1881). ......... 00 cceeeeceeeeeeeeeeneeeees 169 Draper, Roosevelt vs., 23 N. Y¥., 318 (1861); affirming 16 How. Pr., 137.. 355 Du Bois vs. Webster, 7 Hun, 371 (1876)......... 0... cece cece eee eeee 109, 352 Ducat vs. Chicago, 10 Wall., 410 (1870) ....... cece e cece eee e een enes 220 Duden, Tilden vs., 15 N. Y. State Rep., 800 (1888) ........... cc cece eee aes 186 Duer vs. Small, 4 Blatchf., 269; 17 How. Pr., 201 (1859)............66- 25, 61 Dunigan, Graham vs., 2 Bosw., 216 (1858) ..........0 cee ee cee eeaee 170, 292 Dunks, Quackenbush vs., 1 Den, 128 (1845) .........cc cece cece eee eneeenee 69 Dunn, Trustees of Elmira vs., 22 Barb., 402 (1856)............ cece e caer 45 Duntley vs. Davis, 42 Hun, 229 (1886) ...... 0... cece cece cence ete eeeeece 263 E. Earl vs. Camp, 16 Wend., 562 (1837) ....... 0. ccc cece cece eet ence ee eees 70 Eastman, Bunner vs., 50 Barb., 639 (1867)....... 0.0. c cece ence e eee eee 187, 190 Eastman vs. Caswell, 8 How. Pr., 75 (1858).......... ccc ee cece ene eeeeeee 69 Easton vs. Calendar, 11 Wend., 90 (1833) ........... alana Nenu 258, 259 aston vs. Pickersgill, 55 N. Y., 310 (1878) ...... 0... cece cece eee eee e eens 163 Ebbets, Thompson vs., 1 Hopk. Ch., 272 (1824)....... 0... cece eee e ee ee ees 327 Eckerson, Matter of, 17 N. Y. St. Rep., 689 (1888).................08- 824, 325 Eddy, People ex rel. Rome R. R. Co. vs., 40 Hun, 598 (1886) ......... 128, 129 Edmunds, Barry vs., 116 U. 8., 550 (1886)... 2.2... cece eee ee eee eee 23 Edmunds, Sands vs., 116 U. S., 585 (1886) ............. ee ear ere 23 Edson, People ex. rel. Roosevelt vs., 20J. and 8., 53 (1885); reversing 19 J. and S., 238 (1885)..... Se edivseacshgevigisle aia, Saale: plas Wain tase 6a aie Hie wia'solace'ets winigt ed 358 Edye, People vs., 11 Daly, 132 (1882) .......... Guest palebaatelis deaelndaawes es 18 Eldridge, Howland vs., 43 N. Y., 457 (1871) 2.0... sees cee ee eee e eee eee ees 338 Ellice vs. Van Rensselaer, 6 How. Pr., 116 (1851). .........ce ccc eee e ees 164 Ellis vs. Sharp, 42 Hun, 179 (1880)......... 0.0. e eee eee eee e eee e cence eeee 255 Elwell, Randell vs., 52 N. Y., 521 (1873) 0.0.0.0... cc cece cee eeeeees eras 165 Elwood, Johnson vs., 53 N. Y., 4381 (1873)...... 0... cece cece cece eee eee 136, 191 TABLE OF CASES. XXXV_ PAGE Ely, Hill vs., 2 Abb. N. C., 440 (1877)... 00. ...ccceceeeeceesseeeeeeeeeees 358 Ely, Sidenberg vs., 90 N. Y., 257; 11 Abb. N.C., 354 (1882).............. 163 English vs. Ripley, 1 N. Y. State Rep., 762 (1886)................eeeee eee 144 Ensign vs. Barse, 107 N. Y., 339 (1887)...... 32, 138, 139, 143, 144, 149, 199, 241 Enston, Matter of, 46 Hun, 506 (1887); affirming 5 Dem., 132........... 230 Eveleigh vs. Town of Hounsfield, 34 Hun, 141 (1884).................02. 247 Equitable Trust Co. of New London, People vs., 96 N. Y., 387 (1884), 42 204, 205, 207, 210 Errol, Coe vs., 116 U.S., 517 (1886).........ccc cece cece cence eee terete teens 20 Esty, Jackson vs., 7 Wend., 148 (1831)........ 00. ccecee ene n ence ee eeeeeeee 193 .Everson vs. City of Syracuse, 29 Hun, 485 (1883); reversed on another ground in 100 N. Y., 577 (1885)... 0... cee cece eee eee ees 121, 165, 348 Excise Commr’s Onondaga Co. vs. Backus, 29 How. Pr., 41 (1864)...... 61 Exchange Bk., Hill vs., 105 U. S., 819 (1881)........ 0. cece e eee eee eee eee 78 Excise Commr’s of Delaware vs. Sackrider, 35 N. Y., 154 (1866)......... 43 Exempt Firemen’s Fund vs. Roome, 93 N. Y., 313 (1883); affirming 29 Hun, 391 (1883) ...........06 Sadan vat arecaen 32, 34, 203, 224, 228 F. Fake vs. Whipple, 39 N. Y., 394 (1868); affirming 39 Barb., 339.......... 172 Fancher, First Nat. Bank of Sandy Hill vs., 48 N. Y., 524 (1872).... 165, 167 Fargo vs. Michigan, 121 U. S., 280 (1887)..............c cece cece e cn eees eee BL Farley, Matter of, 15 N. Y. State Rep., 727 (1888)................ 231, 236, 237 Farmers’ Branch, etc., of O., Bk. of State of N. Y. vs., 36 Barb., 332 (1862), 83 Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co, vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 7 Hill, 261 (1848), 89 95, 101, 328 Farmers’ Nat. Bank, Matter of, 1 Thomp. & C., 383 (1878).............. 86 Farnham vs. Benedict, 39 Hun, 22 (1886)..............: cece een eer eee . 358 Farrell vs. Higley, 1 Hill & D. Supp., 87 (1848).....................0.04. 68 Fellows vs. Denniston, 23 N. Y., 420 (1861)......... 0... cece eee eee ees 56, 170 Ferguson, People ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. vs., 38 N. Y., 89: (1868), 94, 100 Field, Williamson vs., 2Sandf. Ch., 552 (1845)........... cece e ee een ee 43, 45 Fields vs. Moul, 15 Abb. Pr., 6 (1862)........ 0... cece acer ce ceeee seeeeeee 70 Finch vs. Cleveland, 10 Barb., 290 (1851) .......... cc cece eee ee eee eens 254, 270 ’ Finnin vs. Malloy, 33 N. Y. Supr., 382 (1871) ...........c.cccceeeeee ee ees 69 Fire Assoc. of Phila., People vs., 92 N. Y., 311 (1883)....... ....27, 84, 210, 228 Fire Department of N. Y. vs. Noble, 3 E. D. Smith, 440 (1854)... .25, 220, 226 Fire Department of N. Y. vs. Wright, 3 E. D. Smith, 453 (1854)..... 220, 226 First Nat. Bank vs. Treasurer of Lucas County, 25 Fed. Rep’r, 749 (1885), 88 First Nat. Bank of Sandy Hill vs. Fancher, 48 N. Y., 524 (1872)...... 165, 167 First Nat. Bank of Utica vs. Waters, 7 Fed. Rep’r, 152 (1881)..... 80, 86, 147 Flagg, People ex rel. McClean vs., 46 N. ¥., 401 (1871)...........0. 0s eee 34 Flecke, Reinecke vs., 35 N. Y. Sup., 491 (1878)........ 2... cece eee e ees 69, 70 Floating Dry Dock Co., People vs., 92 N. ¥., 487 (1883)............00.085 34 Follett, Curtiss vs., 15 Barb., 337 (1853)........... cece cence eee eeee 187, 190, 194 Folsom vs. Streeter, 24 Wend., 266 (1840). ........ 0... eee eee ee 253, 257, 264 Fonda, Hilton vs., 86 N. Y., 348 (1881)....... 0... ccc cee cence eee eee e ee enee 110 Fonda, Stewart vs., 19 Hun, 191 (1879)........ 2... ccc cece eee ees 110, 111, 345 XxXXVi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Ford, Matter of, 6 Lans., 92 (1872)........... cece ee cece cence eee eee eeeee 34 Ford vs. Johnson, 34 Barb., 364 (1861). 2.0... 00. ccc cece eee ee ee eee eee 69 Forrest, People ex rel. Chamberlain vs., 96 N. Y., 544 (1884); affirming 30, Hun; 240 cess ienaesaeseedey ese seca tseec eee se Ais satadea moe 130, 327 Forrest, People ex rel. Mills Water Works Co. vs., 97 N. Y., 97 (1884) 45, 47, 327 Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. vs. Lowe, 114 U. S., 525 (1884).............. 47 Foster vs. Van Wyke, 41 How. Pr., 493, 496 (1867); 8. C.,2 Abb. Ct. App., TTL CUSGT) eoeedn 6 oan a yoo 4 vee s wlewe’s ele aweda’s eee y heeitinka deste aes 43,46, 58 Foot, Overing vs., 43 N. Y., 290 (1871); subsequent decision in 65 N. Y., DGS: (1875)! sx 2 xe. ciek seis anedscethaisiieceasscnses a Rea es ,120, 124, 180, 135, 152, 331, 333 Fowler vs. Westervelt, 17 Abb. Pr. Rep., 65 (1863) ................-.5 241, 242 Fowler, People ex rel. Supervisors of Westchester vs., 55 N. Y., 252 (A873) sc rss do alte acda agiiena termed aieaaniemedd Ac agaagaoaalncs 126, 135, 338 Fox vs. Village of Fort Edward, 48 Hun, 363 (1888)..................4.. 273 Fox, Dorn vs., 6 Lans., 162 (1871), 65 N. Y., 264 (1874) ................000 108 Fay, Hickox vs., 36 Barb., 9 (1861); overruled in Snyder vs. Davis, 1 Hun, 350 (1874), 8. C., 3 T. and C., 596 (1874) ............. cee eee 1.e 70 Francklyn vs. Long Island City, 32 Hun, 451 (1884); said to be affirmed in 102) 'IN OY. 24:692: S86) dict has's tains a ataeas oe ee viele eae vee ved Wale ke eae os 335 Franklin vs. Pearsall, 21 Jones & S., 271 (1886) ............. 163, 195, 284, 296 Fredericks, People ex rel. Buffalo and State Line R. R. Co. vs., 48 Barb., 173 (1866); affirmed as Barker, Same vs., 48 N. Y., 70, overruling in effect, Albany and Schenectady R. R. Co. vs. Owen, 12 Barb., 223 (B51) oe asc Dae eas eat clea ha ety ti coe 58, 108, 109, 116, 126, 127, 132, 312 Freeman, Baker vs., 9 Wend., 36 (1832).............. ccc cece eee e eee 344, 346 Frost, Keeler vs., 22 Barb,, 400 (1856)..............0c cece cence ence eee 258, 260 Frost, People ex rel. Hartford and Conn. W. R. RB. Co. vs., 10 N. Y. State: Rep:,.879) (1887) .csesccees os ae le nae edie astouisde witemnens 129, 323 Fuller, Surdam vs., 31 Hun, 510 (1884).......0 00... cece cece ence eee eees 247 Furman, Beach vs., 9 Johns., 229 (1812).... ... ccc cece eee eee eee ees 345 G. Gale vs. Mead, 4 Hill, 109; affirmed in 2 Den., 160 (1845)..... 97, 232, 253, 257 Gardiner, People ex rel. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. vs., 48 Barb., 608 (1867) ; overruled in effect by, The Mayor etc., The Banks vs., 7 Wall., 16 (T8683) Graces eee te ates ety ete y ew ected eutad rae ison lc ars eal atarnep hea cari 77 Gardner, People ex rel. Jefferson vs., 51 Barb., 354 (1868)............. 43, 112 Gardner, Thompson vs., 6 Wend., 404 (1813)..............0c0c cece eee eae 171 Gates, Chapman vs., 54 N. ¥., 132 (1873)............. 0. cc cee cece aces eens 30 Gehlert, Willis vs., 34 Hun, 566 (1885).............c.c cscs cece cece ceeeeees 305 Genesee Nat. Bank vs. Supervisors of Livingston, 53 Barb., 223 (1869), 77 343 Genet vs. City of Brooklyn, 99 N. Y., 296 (1885)........... 0... cece eee eee 30 Gifford vs. Town of White Plains, 25 Hun, 606 (1881).................... 149 Gilbert Elevated Ry., Matter of, 70 N. ¥., 361 (1877)......... ........... 32 Gillilan vs. Spratt, 41 How. Pr., 33 (1871)............-.eccecceecccuccuces 45 Gillis vs. Space, 63 Barb., 177 (1852).......... 0... cece cen cceeeeceencccucs 256 TABLE OF CASES. xxxvii PAGE Gilman vs. Gillman, 8 N. Y. State Rep., 836 (1887)....,................05 835 Given vs. Wright, 117 U.S., 648 (1886) ....... 2.0... e eee eee eee eee 24 Gloucester Ferry Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S., 196 (1885)............. 20 Goff, People ex rel. Oswold vs., 52 N. Y., 434 (1873) ..............0..00005 124, Gold and Stock Tel. Co., People vs., 98 N. Y., 67 (1885). .27, 102, 204, 205, 206 . 207, 210, 211 Golden, Hudler vs., 36 N. Y., 446 (1867) ........ 2... cece cece eee ees 349, 351 Golden, Parish vs., 35 N.Y., 462 (1866)..........0. 0... eee e cece eee eee 136, 138 Good, O’ Reilly vs., 42 Barb., 521 (1864)....... 2... eee eae 165, 351 Gordon vs. Cornes, 47 N. Y., 608 (1872)...... 0.6... cece eee ee eee 31, 41, 346 Goulet vs. Asseler, 22 N. Y., 234 (1860)... 2.2... 2. cece eee eee eee 45 Gouverneur vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 2 Paige, 434 (1831)................ 164 Grace, Bank for Savings vs., 102 N. Y., 313 (1886).......... stings meine 39 Graham vs. Dunigan, 2 Bosw., 216 (1858).....................0. sees 170, 292 Graham, Linden vs., 34 Barb., 316 (1861)........... HALAS Rd DN ad lahat Ba 170 Grant vs. Courter, 24 Barb., 232 (1857)........ 00... cece eee c eee e ees 29, 37 Gray, Bellinger vs., 51 N. Y., 610 (1873).... 64, 136, 187, 146, 147, 148, 162, 343 Gray, Boyd vs., 34 How. Pr., 323 (1867)...........2200005 es aenh deh deh 119, 162 Gray, People ex rel. Grace vs., 45 Hun, 243 (1887)..... 287, 306, 321, 322, 323 Green, Korff vs., 16 How. Pr., 140 (1858) 0.0.2.0... cece cece eee 355 Greenhow, Carter vs., 114 U.S., 317 (1884).................. 0005 Sala geeseed 23 Greenhow, Pleasants vs., 114 U. S., 323 (1885)... 0.0... eee 23 Greenhow, Poindexter vs., 114 U. ., 270 (1885)............. 00... eee eee 23 Greenhow, White vs., 114 U.S., 307 (1885)... 0.0). eee 23 Griffin vs. Sutherland, 14 Barb., 456 (1852)....... 0... 0. . ccc cece eee 68, 70 Grisler, Catlin vs., 57 N. Y., 364:(1874)....... 00.0. cc cece cece cece een ee ". 163 Guest vs. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 97 (1876); affirmed in 69 N. Y.,506.. 34 329, 333 Guffey, Chicago and Kansas City R. R. Co. vs., 122 U. S., 561 (1887)..... 24 H. Hadley, People ex rel. Supervisors of Monroe vs.,1 Abb. N. C., 441 (AS76) icc ovens aoe kia don ennnhwasoos eees bee Pelee eae edalnaase 159 Hadley, People ex rel. Supervisors of Westchester vs., 14 Hun, 183 and 16 Hun, 118; reversed in 76 N. Y., 387 (1879)............ 155, 159, 160, 315 Hagadorn, People vs., 104 N. Y., 516 (1887); affirming, 36 Hun, 610 (1885) ......0, said soul Sdopacesia an ita G08 sees sen ees 30, 34, 146, 147, 187, 189 Haight vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 99 N. Y., 280 (1885); affirming, 32 PRU 15 Bac ae eiehneh ech ene s aesen FSG Ge 4 CASS LOSE Ee ES 121, 284 Hall vs. Penney, 11 Wend., 44 (1833)............ NV édoeheeueweamu doses selene 68 Hall, Pierce vs., 41 Barb., 142 (1864).......... 0... ce cee cee eee eee 188 Hall, Van Vechten vs., 14 How. Pr., 436 (1857).......... 0600 cece eee eee eee 68 Hallock vs. Rumsey, 22 Hun, 89 (1880)............ 0.0 cece cece cece e eens 162 Hallock, Clark vs.,16 Wend., 607 (1837)............0ececseceeeeseeeeeeees 256 Halsey, People ex rel. Stephens vs., 37 N. Y., 344 (1867); affirming, 53 Barb., 547; 36 How. Pr., 487 (1867) .........0ceece eee 60, 61, 108, 110, 338 Ham, Salter vs., 31 N. Y., 322 (1865)...000.....ccccee eee e cece ve veecees sees 61 Hamlin vs. Dingman, 5 Lans., 61 (1871)............ cece ccc eee eee . 254, 258 XXXViii TABLE OF CASES. = PAGE, Hammersly vs. Mayor, 56 N. Y., 533 (1874)....... 06. c cece cece eee eens 30 - Hampton vs. Hamsher, 46 Hun, 144, 147 (1887)..... 111, 112, 239, 240, 241, 243 246, 248 Hand vs. Ballou, 12 N. Y., 641 (1855)... ..... 0.0... cece cnc eee eee e eee 194, 198 Hanlon vs. Supervisors of Westchester, 57 Barb., 383 (1870), 8 Abb. Pr. GN) QOL B70) 2 288 cut 8 xcs jecntsetcin acinar a aici ines snasboavstouavavansseratbiaieeses 36, 331 Hansee vs. Mead, 27 Hun, 162 (1882).............. cece eee ee eee eee ees 199 Hanson, Epp vs., 28 Fed. Rep’r, 127 (1886)....... eee ahh Held seine eRe 21 Hanson, Ex parte, 28 F. R., 127 (1886)....... 0.6 cece eee eee tee ees 21 Hardenburgh, People ex rel. Supervisors of Ulster vs., 90 N. Y., 411 (LSBG) coe hiss Ses ousiteea NSN aera wacaand se uote d 0k eg a Beau hiese hea uel wi ceasuptan sae secnuaiauece sabia 178 Harlem Church vs. Mayor, 5 Hun, 442 (1875)....... 002... sees eee eee eee 66 Harris vs. Supervisors of Niagara, 33 Hun, 279 (1884); 16 Abb. N.C., - DB) Val emits treckerosrsl bite eae ites Myue. Cdeaia dabei tele, 33, 109, 112, 347 Harthouse vs. Rikers, 1 Duer, 606 (1853); 8. C., 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 223 FOE We sutsd ate ben cins souaise as4Sate¥evae bie need aces e ok asmaean 69 Hasbrouck vs. Bouton, 41 How. Pr., 208 (1871); S. C., 60 Barb., 413 (1871) 68 Hasbrouck vs. Kingston Board of Health, 3 Keyes, 480 (1867)........... 230 Hasbrouck vs. Lounsbury, 26 N. Y., 598 (1863).......... 2... cece cece ees 69 Hatch, Neber vs.,10 Abb. N. C., 431 (1881); affirmed in 88 N. Y., 657 {IS8D) coiacaw camnmuninn avernda4saeern ans sha peey ead evkosumdauimuenneis 186 Hathaway, Brooks vs., 8 Hun, 290 (1876)............0.0 cece cece ceeeeees 69 Haupt, People ex rel. Rome, etc., R. R. Co.vs., 104 N.Y., 377 (1887).. 129, 327 Havemeyer, People ex rel, N. Y. oe Harlem R. RB. Co, vs., 3 Hun, 97, note, (1874)....... Se eminsoMate ss MSaeaes sone AEE AYE EORA LE 31, 32, 37, 339 Hawley, Wilcox vs., 31 N. Y., 648 (1864)......... 0.00.0 cca cece cece ence 69 Hawz, People ex rel. McSpedon vs., 34 Barb., 69 (1861)............... 30, 40. Hayes vs. Missouri, 120 U.S., 71 (1886) .......... 0... ccc ce cece cece aes 28. Hayes, Beach vs., 58 How. Pr., 17 (1879) ........0.0 cccecea ec ceeceeeecees 137 Hayes, Crouch vs., 27 Hun, 222 (1887)........... 000.000 ccc cece cee eee 188. Hays vs. Pacific Mail 8. 8. Co., 17 How. U. S., 596 (1854)........ ........ 74 Hays, Simonton vs., 32 Hun, 286 (1884); said to be affirmed in 101 N. Y., GIT tis: ssea seas ara cayacrtne a teta aspayansanbn dunes tuai tet teea ene cear a aoe teeta SORA Cote os enn dn Steds 194 Hayward, Apgar vs., 21J. &S., 357 (1886)................... 1... 284, 285 Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., 580, 594 (1884)........0.0000 cctee cca. 17, 18 Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asylum vs. Mayor, ete., N. ‘Y., 11 Hun, ALG (UBT1) vice Seana ctor eK emtnaseesae tecaceehinendes ode waemen. ane geass 50, 52 Hebrew Free School Assoc. vs. Mayor, 4 ae 448 (1875); reversed in OOIN. Vij ABB (IBRD). coc eccdsevvcweane apacduaccawedsecsancs 49, 50, 67, 290 Henderson vs. Brown, 1 Caines Cas., 92 (1830) 6 2 seisscths- 4 ke aice Wesaiteaarea ee 160 Henderson vs. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U.S., 259 (1875) ....00..000.. 0.00. 18, 24 Hermance vs. Supervisors of Ulster, 71 N. Y., 481 (1877); affirming, 10 HUD i545 os sas Scecece semanas sales ule odeadea made aipwaics or eaue es 339, 348 Herrington, Carpenter vs., 25 Wend., 370 (1841)........ » PpeGiiahe Ds abarnerdransten 68 Hersee vs. Porter, 100 N. Y., 403 (1885)....... 00.0 c ccc e cece cece eee eee 30, 165 Hewitt vs. New York and Oswego Mid. R. R. Co., 12 Blatchf., 452 (1875), 22 Heywood vs. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y., 534 (1856)............. ...... 327, 329 Hickox vs. Fay, 36 Barb., 9 (1861) ; overruled i in Snyder vs. Davis, 1 Hun, 350 (1874); 8. C., 3 T. °% 5:5 96i(V8T4) eesscicatvomwin aden cad guidance cues, -. 70 TABLE OF CASES. XxEXix PAGE. Hicks, People ex rel. Rome, ete., R. R. Co. vs., 40 Hun, 598; affirmed in, 105 N. Y., 198 (1887);.7 N. Y¥. State Rep., 359 (1887) .......... 128, 129, 323 Higley, Farrell vs., 1 Hill & D. Supp., 87 (1843)................. 02. e ee ee 68 Hill, Nat’] Albany Bank vs., 5 F. B., 248 (1880); S. C., Hills vs. Exch. Bley, OS T8553 B19: 1881) icc sop van 3.35 comet Sumcdcwmae eis Mary ie 2 8 Hill, People ex rel. Davis vs., 53 N. Y., 547 (1873); affirming, 65 Barb., BS Dies Sokgaiccisk wislgyeduyagmmiacaal duh egein aed k gas ee Seale ee Semi 314 Hill vs. Selleck, 21 Barb., 207, (1855).......... 00.0.0 ccc eee cee ce eee 253, 269, 269 Hill vs. Supervisors of Livingston, 12 N. Y., 52 (1854).......... 182, 247, 251 Hillhouse, People ex. rel. Benjamin vs., 1 Lans., 87 (1869).............. 155 Hilliard vs. Austin, 17 Barb., 141 (1853) ........ haa tn soak woe tel ethan k uss 172 Hills vs. Exchange Bank, 105 U.S., 319 (1881) ....... 0.0... cece eee 78 Hills ws. Peekskill Savings Bank, 26 Hun, 161; 101 N. Y., 490 (1886).. 39, 359 Hills, People ex rel. McConville vs., 35 N. Y., 449 (1866) ; Tevererne 46 Barbs; 340 « a. sc5 ccsegyeascageessveteee vege yay el sed vewenee eeeea aes 31 Hilton wa Bender, 69 N. Y., 75 (1877); reversing, 2 Hun,1.............. 186 Hilton vs. Fonda, 86 N. Y., 348 (1881)... 2... eee cn eee 110 Himrod, Barto vs., 8 N. Y., 483 (1853)............-.....004- Suigialniaugras weeny 40 Hinckley vs. Cooper, 22 Hun, 253 (1880). 0.0.0.0... cece cece eee eee eae 187 Hitt vs. Crosby, 26 How. Pr., 413, etc., (1864) 0.0.0.0... ee eee ee eee 61, 114 Holden, Williams vs., 4 Wend., 223 (1830) .......... 0. cee cece eee eee 112, 164 Holdridge, Becker vs., 47 How. Pr. 429 (1874)...........cc ccs ec eee e eens 195 Hollenbeck, Livingston vs., 4 Barb., 9 (1847); 3 How. Pr., 343... 22, 182, 151 152, 311, 329 Home Ins. Co. vs. New York, 119 U. S., 129 (1886); see 92 N. Y., 328..... V7 Home Ins. Co., People vs., 92 N. Y., 328 (1883); see 119 U. S., 129.. 26, 35, 208 206, 208, 210, 211 Hood, People ex rel. Rome, etc., B. R. Co. vs., 104 N. Y¥., 877 (4887)..... 129 Hoagland, Wurts vs., 114 U.S., 606 (1885)........... 02. a7 Hope, Doughty vs., 3 Den., 594; affirmed in 1 N. Y¥., 79 (1847); How. Cas: 5-209. sccswdcawarewawamecemerE ne aawed b544asesacEd cases wage 161, 194, Hopkins, People ex rel. Supervisors of Richmond vs., 2 Thomp. & C., 586 (UST4): eves eee saa se sy oe ees ena ea ete ee mame ou gals aha ee 185 Horan, Trowbridge vs., 78 N. Y., 439 (1879)...............65 nee Wiecae 109, 123 Horn Silver Mining Co., People vs., 105 N.Y., 76 (1887) ; \eaftirming 38 Hun, O16 ici tthtakgaceas os ned geese gees bee Lee era leew Lig meee Ee 204, 207 Hornby, Weed vs., 35 Hun, 580 (1885)...... 0... cece eee eee eee ee ees 189 Hotchkiss, Kirtland vs., 100 U.S., 491 (1879) ; affirming 42 Conn., 426..42, 65 Houston, Brown vs., 114 U S., 622, 633 (1885).......... eee cece eee 17, 20, 25 Houston, New Orleans vs., 119 U. S., 265 (1886)............. cece ee eee eee D4 Howard, Becker vs., 66 N. Y., 5 (1876); affirming, 4 Hun, 359; revers- ine) A IEOw, PR, AO onckayuwrmesides gausddudbuauemang £7, 97, 186, 195 Howard, Matter of, 5 Dem., 483 (1887)....... 0.0... . cece eee eee eee 77, 229, 233 Howe, Matter of, 48 Hun, 235 (1888).....0. 0.0... e cece eect cece ees 230 Howland vs. Eldridge, 43 N. Y., 457 (1871)..... 00.0... pees c ccc tee eee 338 Howland, People ex rel. Amer, "Tiner Thread Co. v8., 6 Lans., 105; 61 Barbi: 273 USTL) aes crane eae ee ely Sila oo tala aitntaiers table yen edeanat 94, 133 Hoyt vs. Van Alstyne, 15 Barb., 568 (1853).......... 00. cece cece 69, 70 xl TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Hoyt, Alexander vs., 7 Wend.,89 (1831); overruled in Hill vs. Sellick, 21 Barb: 5. 201s: oie eeeneiGaaaawanben ah ooacadens iS eaaadewsinees 258, 254, 260 Hubbell vs. Weldon, Hill & D. Supp., 189 (1843).................... 126, 185 Huber vs. People, 49 N. Y., 182 (1872)......... Pe tik eee DON 32 Hudler vs. Golden, 36 N. Y., 446 (1867) 20... 20... ccc cece cece eee eee ee 349, 351 Hudson City Savings Inst., Matter of, 5 Hun, 612 (1875); overruled in case of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 77 N. Y., 342, 344 (1879)........... 348 Hudson River Bridge Co. vs. Patterson, 74 N. Y., 365 (1878) ; affirming 11 iis 527 (A871) cde acwatiaai eens coy oe Se Rene Ske here nee 92, 117, 249 Hughes, Looney vs., 26 N. Y¥., 514 (1863)........ 0.06 c cece eee ee eee eee 174 Hull vs. Ely, 2 Abb. N. C©., 440 (1877) 20... eee eee nee es 358 Hull vs. Supervisors of Oneida, 19 Johns., 259 (1821)...............00008 336 Hull, Benjamin vs., 17 Wend., 437 (1887).......... 000 cece eee eens 256, 280 Hunnewell, United States vs., 13 F. R., 617 (1882)................. 0. eee 229 Hunter, Matter of, 11 N. Y. State Rep’r, 704 (1887).......... 0.0... eee eee 230 Hunter, Price vs., 34 F. B., 355 (1888)... 0.0... cece cece eee ee ve 14 Huntington vs Worthen, 120 U. S., 97 (1887)....... 0... cece eee eee 28 Hurlburt vs. Banks, 1 Abb. N. C., 157 (1876) 00.0.0... cece cece eee ee eens 34 Hutchinson vs. Chamberlain, 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 248 (1853)....... 68, 69, 70 Hyland, Osterhoudt vs., 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 687 (1885) asd od versal eins as arenes dave nari CAG ARE Ca Ot AS Seal excramedmananaied 3E7 I. Illinois, Wabash, St. Louis and Pac. Ry. Co. vs., 118 U. S., 557 (1886)... 20 Inman vs. Coleman, 37 Hun, 170 (1885).......... ccc cece cence eee 135, 169 Insurance Companies vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 17 How. Pr., 208 (1858)..43, 92 International Life Assurance Soc. vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 28 Barb., 318, etc. (1858)....... 0. cece cece ence cece eens 43, 62, 76, 90, 92 International Life Assurance Co., Smyth vs., 35 How. Pr., 126 (1868) ; §.10;-4 Abb: Priy NiS: 1868) wcecedicaccsoenaes utes au pe eéee ceczaaead 62, 312 Isaacs, Sperling vs., 13 Daly, 275 (1885) .............4.... Rea eect Mena 303 J. Jackson vs. Babcock, 16 N. Y., 246 (1857) ............. ae de sobnskt iii. bocoacosaci 170 Jackson vs. Esty, 7 Wend., 148 (1831) ..........06.0 cece eee cece eee ees 193 Jackson vs. Morse, 18 Johns., 441 (1821). 0.0.0.0... cece eee cence ence eee 189 Jackson vs. Shepard, 7 Cow., 88 (1827)........... 0... ccc eee eee ee ceeeneece 185 Jackson, Clementi vs., 92 N. Y., 591 (1883) ........... 0... c eee eae ee 139, 340 Jackson, People ex rel. Andrews vs.,1N. Y. State Rep., 491 (1886)...... 340 Jackson, Wheeler vs., 41 Hun, 410 (1886)............0c cece ee vececeeeenee 23 Jahns, Beeson vs., 37 Alb. L. J., 142 (1888)...........0 00000 ceeec cece cece 193 Jansen vs. Ostrander, 1 Cow., 670 (1824)......... 0. ccescencececceeeceuuns 172 Jenkins, Chegaray vs., 3Sandf. Super. Ct., 709 (1850) ; affirmed on another ground in 5 N. Y., 376 (1851) 00.0... .cceeeseeeeesseeee 48, 49, 66, 161, 290 Jenkins, Town of Duanesburgh vs., 57 N. Y., 177 (1874); reversing 46 BATb: , O94. caciaaistvstacayaasaccinoksomnane hts obeueooehee neieepreee eon: 38, 39 Jephson, McLean vs., 41 Hun, 479 (1886)........ ccc ece eee e ee ecccesences 295 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE.’ Jersey City, Provident Institution vs., 113 U. S., 506 (1885)....... ...... 27 Jewell vs. Van Steenburgh, 58 N. Y., 85 (1874) ............-0. eee 253, 254, 258 Jewett vs. Lamphear, 20 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 232 (1884).............. 124, 186 Johnson vs. Elwood, 53 N. Y., 431 (1878) 00.2... 2... cece ccc eee ee eee 136, 191 Johnson vs. Learn, 30 Barb., 616 (1859)........... 6.0. e cece eee ees 108, 109 Johnson, Cole vs., 10 Daly, 258 (1881) ............e cece c eee nee eee 25 Johnson, Ford vs., 34 Barb., 364 (1861).......... 2 cee eee eee ee 69 Jones vs, Chamberlain, 21 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 587 (1885) ..............+5 243 Joyce vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 20 How Pr., 489 (1860).................5. 31 Jones, Matter of, 19 Abb. N. C., 221; 5 Dem., 30 (1887)... 231, 232, 233, 235, 236 237, 238 Jones, Eaople ex rel. yee etc., R. R. Co. vs., 43 Hun, 131 (1887), 131 139, 148 Jones, People ex rel. Rome, Watertown, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 43 Hun, 131 (1887); affirmed in 106 N. Y., 380....... ccc ce eee cece eee eee 131, 139, 143 K. Kane vs. City of Brooklyn, 15 N. Y. State Rep., 872 (1888)....... 181, 140, 143 Kane, Troy and Lansingburgh R. R. Co. vs., 72 N.Y., 614 (1878); affirm- TE. 9 ATTN, HOG sid sss a edcdscass esustsssndasdededcatiais 9 Baeermleseacavoalaea sa henulennaneeaie ears 352 Keator, People ex rel. Wallkill Valley R. R. Co. vs., 36 Hun, 592 (1885) ; affirming, 67 How. Pr., 277 (1884); 101 N. Y., 610 (1885)...... 135, 319, 323 325, 326 | Keator, People ex rel. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. vs., 2 How. Pr. LN SS5A79 (SBD ics aasrsuarcrditds alata shen ohel planta rautanieat wuazueeie 127, 135 Keech, Newton vs., 9 Hun, 355 (1876) .........c cece cece eee n ee stn eeeee 356 Keeler vs. Chicester, 18 Wend., 629 (1835)..........cee eee e cece eee e ees 263 Keeler vs. Frost, 22 Barb., 400 (1856).........0cce cece ee cece tenner 258, 260 Kellinger, Matter of, 9 Paige, 62 (1841)........ 0... eee eee cee eee eee 113 Kelly’s Application, 10 Abb. Pr., 208 (1860)......... cece eee cece eee e nee 294 Kelly, People ex rel. Murphy vs., 76 N. Y¥., 475 (1879)...............00085 39 Kent vs. Warner, 47 Hun, 474 (1888)........... 0. ccc eee eee 139 Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S., 321 (1885)................00000 Q7 Keogh, Lathers vs., 39 Hun, 576 (1886); affirmed in 17 U.S. Rep., 131 (LBBB) Sesecesehscdececenaih ise diene ue ch sista heserins Seevoltpayat aac Guar aneselataautesd ice 120, 144 Keyes, Morse.vs., 6 How. BY, WB UB5 Ds ciaieina eatednaenarnayavas et gheente awsmanneedey 69 Keys, Suydam vs., 18 Johns., 444 (1816)...............002e ee eae wtucoinors 346 Kidd, Van Rensselaer vs., 4 Barb., 17 (1847); diff. proc. from 6 N. Y., Dod seaasdScskadeaaSessucsiraanavOueay Oh Gee aysate sou saadus aes sate tun team Matas waualal ayant bok yee Rare 329° Kidd, Van Rensselaer vs., 6 N. ¥., 331 (1852)...........cceceeceee eee eee 162 Kilbourne vs. St. John, 59 N. Y., 21 (1874); affirming Kilbourne vs. Allyn, (Liane), Bb 2h ic ssriwisiasindera cama cadaa enw aul salshnndaarmeinaaiencsas 356 Kilmer, Schouten vs., 8 How. Pr., 527 (1858) ....... cc cee eee eee ee eee 54 King, Bank of Ithaca vs., 12 Wend., B90 (1884) o derarienctcismurinceinatenioan 240, 246 King, Village of Olean vs.,5 N. Y. Siate Repr., 169 (1886).......... 178, 279 Kingston Board of Héalth, Hasbrouck vs., 3 Keyes, 480 (1867).......... 330 vi xlii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Kingston, People ex rel. Supervisois of Ulster vs., 101 N. Y., 82 (1886); 3 How.. Pr; [NiiSi)5 452-6c.che00e cee ba bc aganeened es co yee aedawwes 157, 160, 317 Kirkpatrick, United States vs., 9 Wheat., 720......... 0.0.0... ccc e eee 173 Kirtland vs. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491 (1879); affirming, 42 Conn., 426..42, 65 Knapp vs. Newtown, 1 Hun, 268 (1874) ...... 2.00. cece cece eee ees 39 Knapp, Wood vs., 100 N. Y., 109 (1885)................. 0005 182, 191, 195, 197 Knaust, Matter of, 101 N. Y., 188 (1886)......... 0... cece eee e eee eee 34 Kneettle vs. Newcomb, 31 Barb., 169 (1857); affirmed in 22 N. Y., 249 (EBGO) aie! sascoventvavins eX Sti te ap Bon d ate tee Site Netetdind limes maatlanadad aif Savanmm Aalis 54, 69 Knickerbocker Ice Co., People vs., 99 N. Y., 181 (1885); affirming, 32 PAU AD ela Sacra cer Anak 5.00 1 Aine teeta atctarstenae aratalennia woman Heme aa hss AINE? 207 Korff vs. Green, 16 How. Pr., 140 (1858). 0... 0... cc cece eect cence ences 355 Kortwright vs. Blunt, 12 How. Pr., 424 (1855); see Kortright vs. Cady.. 296 Kortright vs. Cady, 21 N. Y., 343 (1860); reversing, Kortright vs. Blunt, AD FO Wi IPP, A04 os snscuainnnen wanted ada tote e eee nadene aaonsedauanarns 296. L. La Grange, Cole vs., 118 U.S., 1 (1885)... 0. ccc cece ec eee ence taces D5: Lake Shore and M.‘C. R’y Co. vs. Roach, 80 N. Y., 339 (1880)........ 165, 166. Lakey, Rundell vs., 40 N. Y., 513 (1869)... 0... cece cece eer eee 121 Lalor vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 12 Daly, 235 (1883)................ ..0005 283 Lamoreaux vs. O’Rourke, 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 15 (1866)............... 258 Lamphear, Jewett vs., 20 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 232 (1884).............. 124, 186 Larkin, Williams vs., 3 Den. 116 (1846) ............ 0.0 cece cece cece eae eee 257 Lathers vs. Keogh, 39 Hun, 576 (1886); affirmed in 17 U. S. Rep., 131 (SSS) tse tN she ferrets tno once NE Ri Ace ae cen eat 120, 144 Lathrop vs. Singer, 39 Barb., 396 (1863) ......... 20... cee eee ARIE 54 Laurence, People ex rel. Crowell vs., 41 N. Y., 123, 187 (1869)........ 30, 41 Lawrence, Ayers vs., see Lawrence, Ayres vs. Lawrence, Ayres vs., 63 Barb., 454 (1872) (diff. pro. from 59 N. Y.)...355, 356 Lawrence, Ayres vs., 59 N. Y., 192 (1874); reversing 1 Thomp. & C. ad- GT bsnl faa eee sa aieacntncants ance Lele ni pet nacntons 30, 41, 355, 356 Le Couteulx, City of Buffalo vs., 15 N. Y., 451 (1857)............... 21, 22, 152 Le Couteulx vs. Supervisors of Erie, 7 Barb., 249 (1849)............ 21, 22, 151 Learn, Johnson vs., 30 Barb., 616 (1859)..............0. cc cece ee eee 108, 109 Leavitt, Preston vs., 6 Wend., 663 (1831) .....00. 0.0 c eee ea ce ee 264 Lee, Baker vs., 41 Hun, 591 (1886)............ 0.00000 ec cece eee cece ee ees 265 Lee vs. Bd. Supervisors Jefferson Co., 62 How. Pr., 201 (1881) .......... 357 Lee, People ex rel. Gass vs., 28 Hun, 469 (1882)............0......0.0.. 32, 33 Lefever, Matter of, 5 Dem., 184 (1887)................ sh eM eB aaheudedh iativn 230, 232 Leland vs. Bennett, 5 Hill, 286 (1843)........0000 000 ccc cece eee ee 193. Leland, Thomas vs., 24 Wend., 65 (1840).......0.. .0...e cece eee alsin ts 39 Leloup vs. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S., 640 (1888)...........0....00.0..0000, 207 Le Roy vs. Mayor, 20 Johns, 430 (1823)......0... 00. e cece cece eee eee 311 Lewis, Dike vs., 4 Den., 237 (1847); further decision in 2 Barb., 344... 190 Lewis, Matter of, 81 N. Y., 421 (1880)........0.0 02... cece cece eee ee eee 163 Lewis, Missouri vs., 101 U. 8., 30 (1879) ......... 0.0... ccc eee eee ee ., 2% Lewis, Seibert vs., 122 U.S., 284 (1887).......0...0.00000000 00000 » . TABLE OF CASES. xliit PAGE Linden vs. Graham, 34 Barb., 316 (1861) ....... 0... cece cece cece cece eeenee 170 Litchfield vs. Vernon, 41 N. Y., 1231869) van cen swe how ce asad es ea od eu Os 41 Livingston vs. Hollenbeck, 4 Barb. , 9 (1847); 3 How. ai 343..... 22,132, 151, Lockwood vs. Younglove, 27 Barb., 505 (1858) 0.0.0.0... .ceceee eee ee eee 69 Long Island City, Francklyn vs., 32 Hun, 451, said to be affirmed in 102 IN. Ms GOQ(TS86): wks cae Maientoaatannia adi 4 aaoiductewtaedoneties6 335 Long Island ‘City, Woolsey vs., 13 Weekly Dig., 182 (1881)... se vabeeaueiees 333 Looney vs. Hughes, 26 N. Y., 514 (1863).............0 cee eee eee eee eee 174 Loper, Van Buren vs., 29 Barb., 388 (1859) ....... 0... eee e eee eee 69, 70 Lord vs. Arnold, 18 Barb., 104 (1854)... 0.0... cece eee eee eee 58, 72,’ 112 Lorillard vs. Town of Monroe, 11 N. Y., 392 (1854)............. ccc cece eee 341 Lott vs. De Graw, 30 Hun, 417 (1883)......... 0. ccc cece eee ence eee eee 186 Lott vs. Swezey, 29 Barb., 87 (1859) 0.0.0... eect e eee ee 351 Louisiana, Morgan S. 8. Co. vs., 118 U.S., 455 (1886) .............. 17, 20, 25 Lounsbury, Hasbrouck vs., 26 N. Y., 598 (1863)....... 0.0... cece eee eee ees 69 Lowe, Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. vs., 114 U.S., 525 (1884)............. 47 Low, People ex rel. N. Y., Lake Erie and Western R. R. Co. vs., 40 Hun, 176 (1886)........... So aaleniz a teeters nie he ates eck atl Md Uae 322 Thucas vs. McEnerna, 19 Hun, 14 (1879) ...............-..... rachibe ene we. 194: Luce, Seaman vs., 23 Barb., 240 (1856)....... 0.2. c cece cece eee eee e eee 69 Lyon, New York and Harlem R. R. Co. vs., 16 Barb., 65 1(1853). .43, 109, 110 185, 164 MM. McCoskey’s Estate, Matter of, 1 N. Y. Supplt., 782 (1888, ............... 231 McCarthy, People ex rel. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. vs., 102 N. Y., 680 (1886), 156 318, 319 McCready, Matter of, 27 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 188 (1887).................. 230 McEnerna, Lucas vs., 19 Hun, 14 (1879)..... 0... e eee ee 194 McGiveney vs. Childs, 41 Hun, 607 (1886) .......... 00. .cee se ceeee eee eee 69 McIntyre, O’Donnell vs., 37 Hun, 615 (1885)........ 2... cee e eee een 130, 138 McLanahan vs. City of Syracuse, 18 Hun, 259 (1879)...............00.005 162 McLean vs. Jephson, 41 Hun, 479 (1886)...... 0... cece cece eee ene e ees 295. Mclean vs. Manhattan Medicine Co., 22 J. &S., 371 (1887); reversing 3 N. Y. State Rep., 550 (1886) .........ceec cece ee eece tence ves 106, 293, 295. McLean, People ex rel. Bay State, etc., Co. vs., 80 N. Y., 254 (1880); affirming 17 Hun, 204 (1879); 5 Abb. N. C., 187 (1878)..... 63, 112, 117, 315 McMahon vs. Beekman, 65 How. Pr., 427 (1883). a duasnesdehasrusaucishnsea 120, 284, 285 McMahon vs. Palmer, 102 N. Y., 176, ‘189 (1886); affirming 11 Daly, 214 (1881) and 12 Daly, 362 (1884)..............04. 30, 44, 84, 86, 283, 284, 294 McMahon vs. Redfield, 12 Daly, 1 (1883)........ 0... cc cece cece eee eee ee 294. McMahon, Matter of, 102 N. Y., 176 (1886); same case as McMahon vs. Palmer, 12 Daly, 208 )(088), .ccxinsnncwnnsdoesieatqannens 84, 86, 284, 294 McMahon, Matter of, 66 How. Pri:190. (1883) ees ecce ees yee aecesedemes 63, 80 McMahon, Matter of, 67 How. Pr, 118; S.C. as McMahon vs. Jones, 14 Abb. N. C., 406; affirmed in 1 How. Pr. [N.§.], 270 (1885)......... 115. McMahon, Peter Cooper’s Glue Factory vs., 15 Abb. N. C., 314 (1885). .92, 117 MeMillan vs. Bellows, 37 Hun, 214 (1885)....... 0.2.0 sees ee een e oneness 111 xliv . TABLE OF CASES. PaGE, McNamara, Niagara Elevating Co. vs., 50 N. Y., 653 (1872); 2 Hun, 416; affirming 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon), 360.......................162, 352 McPherson, Matter of, 104 N. Y., 306 (1887).................... 30, 35, 230, 236 McVean vs. Sheldon, 48 Hun, 163 (1888)........ 6... ccc c cece e eee eee 230 Mackay, National Fire Ins. Co. vs., 5 Abb. Pr. [N.8.], 445 (18C7)........ 170 Magee vs. Cutler, 43 Barb., 239 (1864)........ ... cece eee eee 312, 342, 355 Maher, Albany City Nat. Bank vs., 6 Fed. Repr., 417 (1881); S. C., 9 Fed. ROPT 5/884. (1882). oc02.00 2 Fic 2 sidarersinrciacie aaa actesepesdonensanes 27, 79, 80, 88 Malloy, Finnin vs., 33 N. Y. Supr., 382 (1871)..........00 00. cece eee eee es 69 Manhattan Medicine Co., McLean vs., 22 J. & S., 371 (1887); reversing 3N. Y., State Repr., 550 (1886).......... cece cece eee n teens 293, 295 Manhattan Ry. Co. vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 18 Fed. Repr., 195 (1883)... 26 Manley vs. Mayor, 24 W. D., 95 (1886)......0. 02... eee eee eee ees 342 Mann vs. City of Utica, 44 How. Pr., 334 (1872)........... cece eee 380 Manufacturers’ Bank vs. Mayor, etc., of Troy, 24 How. Pr., 250 (1859)'s2..020 sv ee adcaaenweverateee tases awe seas geau cex ca eee eee 85, 101 Mapes, Board of Education Union Free School vs., 14 N. Y. State R., DOSE (L BOS) 2 2c0:5 sen we Sie cence pa vasentccieuscneagetans acon race arauaneed aus oh aaa ae ae namn WAS 267 Marcinkowiski, Senior vs., 1 How. Pr. [N. S.], 381 (1884)..............05. 200 Marsh vs. Bowen, 12 Abb. N. C., 1 (1881)........ cece eee c eects eee 124 Marsh vs. Chamberlain, 2 Lans., 288 (1870).......0. cece cece eens e eee ees 58 Marye vs. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co., 127 U.S., 117 (1888).......... 118 Marye vs. Parsons, 114 U.S., 325 (1885)....... 0. cece ccc ee ete eee ee 23 Maryland, Carson vs., 120 U.S., 502 (1887)....... cece eee eee 21 Matheson, Wade vs., 4 Lans., 158 (1870); affirmed in 47 N. Y., 658...... 114 Matter of Astor, 50 N. Y., 363 (1872); also, 14 N. Y. State Repr., 478 (1888) ; also, 17 N. Y. State Repr., 787............605 31, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237 Matter of Boyce, 2 Cow., 444 (1824)... ... cece cece cece cece renee nee eee 179, 336 Matter of Brooklyn, etc., Ry., 75 N. Y., 335 (1878)....... 00... cece eee eee 32 Matter of Buffalo and Jamestown R. R. Co.,5 Hun, 485 (1875) .......... 39 Matter ot Cager, 46 Hun, 657 (1887); 13 N. Y. State Repr., 45............. 230 Matter of Chardavoyne, 5 Dem., 466 (1887)............. cee eae 230, 234, 237 Matter of Church, 92 N. Y., 1 (1883)...........0cccccc ce ceceeeene esse eens 30 Matter of Cogswell, 4 Demarest, 248 (1885)...........0. 00 0c ccc eee eens 232 Matter of Columbia Ins. Co., 3 Abb. Ct. Ap. Dec., 239 (1866) ............ 162 Matter of Conklin, 36 Hun, 588 (1885) .......... 00... ccc epee cece eee 169 Matter of Cooper, 28 Hun, 515 (1883)........ 0... cece cece cece e eee cela 32 Matter of Delancey, 52 N. Y., 80 (1878)........ 00. cece ence een e ec nveves 30 Matter of Eckerson, 17 N. Y. State Rep., 689 (1888).................. 324, 325 Matter of Enston, 46 Hun, 506 (1887); affirming 5 Dem., 132............ 230 Matter of Farley, 15 N. Y. State Rep., 727 (1888)................. 231, 236, 237 ° Matter of Farmers’ Nat. Bank, 1 Thomp. & C., 383 (1873) ....... Baers a 86, 345 Matter of Ford, 6 Lans., 92 (1872) ...........cceccceees ceececeecececerees 34 Matter of Gilbert Elevated Ry., 70 N. Y., 361 (1877)............ C0 Buneteyy 82 Matter of Howard, 5 Dem., 483 (1887)..............ccccceeeccenees 77, 229, 233 Matter of Howe, 48 Hun, 235 (1888).......... ccc cece ese n cence eaeeeenece 230 Matter of Hudson City Savings Ins., 5 Hun, 612 (1875); overruled in case of N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 77 N. Y., 342, 344................. 348 Matter of Hunter, 11 N. Y. State Rep., 704 (1887) ...........ccc cece ceeues 230 TABLE OF CASES. xlv PAGE. Matter of Jones, 19 Abb. N. C., 221; 5 Dem., 30 (1887). ....... 231, 232, 233, 235 236, 237, 238 Matter of Kellinger, 9 Paige, 62 (1841) .......... 2.0 cece cece ee eee eee 113 Matter of Knaust, 101 N. Y., 188 (1886)............ ccc ccc cece cece eee eeee 34 Matter of Lefever, 5 Dem., 184 (ASST) a csssetaiaisre Mipeeinem ema aee ae ee 230, 232 Matter of Lewis, 81 N. Y., 421 (VE8O) : arstiah cd Aniainiaistsleautacsnea cer a aiwar anaes 163 Matter of McCoskey’s Estate, 1 N. Y. Supplt., 782 (1888) ................ 231 Matter of McCready, 27 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 188 (1887).................05 230 Matter of McMahon, 102 N. Y., 176 (1886); same case as McMahon vs. Palmer, 129 Daly}. 862 -cccccsnsuorenaomeenieaws aeenensvm vewine 84, 86, 284, 294 Matter of McMahon, 66 How. Pr., 190 (1883) .........c.ccececeecee sees 63, 80 Matter of McMahon, 67 How. Pr., 113;S. C. as McMahon vs. Jones, 14 Abb. N. C., 406; affirmed in 1 How. Pr. [N. 8.], 270 (1885)............ 115 Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y., 306 (1887) ..........ceeesecees 30, 35, 230, 236 Matter of, Mayor, etc., of New York, 11 Jobns., 77 (1814)................ 53 Matter of Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., 85 N. Y., 526 (1881)........... son OR Matter of Miller, 47 Hun, 394 (1888) ; 45 Hun, 244 (1887); affirming5 Dem., NBD ic oescdss acgsenno ravinesgubeesswotaen iienecs ee oe en eT O Tae 230, 231, 232, 234 Matter of New York Central R. R. Co., 90 N. Y., 342 (1882) ........ weene 121 Matter of New York Elevated R. R. Co., 70 N. Y., 327 (1877)............. 32. Matter of North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 63 Barb., 571 (1872).... 94 Matter of Rector of Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 61 How. Pr., 315 CT SBO) scascucnavanrevana tosavaveyuvove oan vac Sarausu deena wee ieaieracsebdadatinatsia walendicuatam avian veneer 192 Matter of Robertson, 5 Dem., 92 (1887)........... cece cece eee eee eeeeeeees 236. Matter of Smith, 5 N. Y. Senta Repr., 380; 5 Dem., 90 (1886)..........0.. 230 Matter of St. Joseph’s Asylum, 69 N. Y., 353 (1877); modifying and affirming 10 Hun, 113s. s.cssecssvsseevaatecaeceeieiech saa Nisy eae 51 Matter of St. Thomas Church, 1 Monthly Law Bul., 25 (1879)........... 296. Matter of Thompson, 14 N. Y. State Repr., 487 (1888) sagdannbybegrneniaed sesso 231, 283 Matter of Town of Flatbush, 60 N. Y., 398 (1875)............ec cece cee ee 32 Matter of Trustees of N. Y. Prot. Epis. School, 31 N. Y., 574 (1864)...... 40 Matter of Ulster Co. Savings Bank, 20 Hun., 481 (1880) ........... 43, 76, 348. Matter of Union Ferry Co., 98 N. Y., 139 (1885); reversing 32 Hun, 84... 32 Matter of U.'S., 96 N. Y., 227 (1884) ....... ee RRA DAA AAD SAREE LARS Bille 281 Matter of Van ‘Antwerp, 56 N. Y., 261 (1874); affirming 1 ee Ct. (OD REO Nu AO cacti rer AAG lie Sick aed caldera batacsetant 32 Matter of Winans, 5 Dem., 138 (1887) ......... 6. cece cece eens 68, 69, 70» Matter of Woolsey, 19 Abb. N. C., 232 (1887)........ Gained icles ane bac tiene 230- Mathewson vs. Waller, 3 Denio, 52 (1846)..........0.. cece cece ence eee 69, 70- Mayor, Banks vs., 7 Wall., 16 (1868); reversing People ex rel. Nat. Broadway Bank vs. Hoffman, 37 N. Y.,9 ............0. cece eee eee 7 Mayor, Bird vs., 33 Hun, 396 (1884) 0.00... 0... cece cece e eee e eee en eee 857: Mayor, Hammersly vs., 56 N. Y¥., 532 (1874) 0.2... cc cece e cece eee eee 30: Mayor, Harlem Church vs., 5 Hun, 442 (1875)........... cece cece cece eee 66 Mayor, Hebrew Free School vs., 4 Hun, 448; reversed in 99 N. Y., 488, (TBE yesh Rath saceetinc ead eta Re cole hia a deh fatten cases or aa 49, 50, 67, 290 Mayor, Le Roy vs., 20 Johns 480 (1823).......... 00. cece eee eee eee eee 311 Mayor, Manly vs., 24 W. D., 95 (1886)....... 0... c cece ei cece eee neces 842 Mayor, Methodist Episcopal Church vs., 20 Hun, 298 (1880) .......... 66, 284. xlvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE, Mayor, Pacific Mail S. S. Co. vs., 57 How. Pr., 511 (1879)..........5- 315, 333 Mayor, Roosevelt Hospital vs., 84 N. Y., 108 (1881); affirming 18 Hun, 562° afurmed in 84.N, Y., 108) .2cc ccc sesvies esis sues ve reueaweranave ss 51 Mayor, Roosevelt vs., 1 How. Pr., N.S., 205 (1884) ............. eee ewes 359 Mayor, Starin vs., 42 Hun, 549 (1886); reversing, 1 N. Y. State Rep., 544 (1886) xn da ecod coace Bae eas nyee canadian ds cols mi eeawem wee eran eS 358 Mayor, St. James Church vs., 41 Hun, 309 (1886)........... ceeeeeeeeees 290 Mayor of Troy vs. Mutual Bank, 20 N. Y., 387 (1857) ............0. eee 84 Mayor of Troy, Manufacturer’s Bank vs., 24 How. Pr., 250 (1859) ....85, 101 Mayor, etc., of Albany, Benson vs., 24 Barb., 248 (1857) .............000s 31 Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, People ex rel. Griffin vs., 4 N. Y., 419 (1851); TOVETSING:9 Baxrd.,; S80 scecccawerainingensns aoe sade deta cadaue Cae as 29, 37, 39, 314 Mayor, etc., of N. Y. vs. Davenport, 92 N. Y., 604 (1883) ......... 154, 156, 183 Mayor, etc., N. Y., Association for Colored Cepia vs., 104 N. Y., 581, (TBST igs aiee's oo by de ede sy sexs PRES etaertaneehina eee 51, 283, 286, 290 Mayor of New York, Astor vs.,5 J. &S8., 539 (1874). reversed in 39 Supr. (DBRS M A D0 rosette ndas cern terinn tn hie waa tdnwl nate voted 28 30 Mayor, etc., of New York, Bank of Commonwealth vs., 43 N. Y., 184 (1B 70) so aiors oes a cotta a ear Alas ear onc nase rusecea a 179, 350 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Bartlett, vs., 5 Sandf., 44 (1851).............0.0005 113 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Boreel vs., 2 Sandf., 552 (1849). ....... 0... cece 45, 185 Mayor, ete., of N. Y., Chegaray vs., 13 N. Y., 220 (1855); reversing 2 PUSH) 529 (1858) 6c vecan ae alee uoes Adtaudannnpdanswammarionamavenaiie 49, 66 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Church of St. Monica vs., 13 N. Y. State Rep’r, SOS S87) issrcdicuisienaewrw ness dulnee sv dels we eager ie Mak eheee eae ene .49, 289 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Clarke vs., 13 N. ¥. State Rep., 290; S. C., 23 Js BOB s5 B59 (1888) cases cas eevee eee aba es satde kdl artcace seca avausvanecsinennualaien 303, 351 Mayor of New York, Darlington vs., 31 N. Y., 164, 185 (1865)............ 36 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Devlin vs., 63 N. Y., 8 (1875) ..... 0... cece cece ees 32 Mayor, etc., N. Y¥., Douglas vs., 2 Duer, 110 (1853)..................00005 113 Mayor, etc., of N. ¥., Dowdney vs., 54 N. Y., 186 (1873)...............00, 296 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. vs., 7 Hill, 261 (1843).. 89 95, 101, 328 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Gouverneur vs., 2 Paige, 434 (1831) ............... 164 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Haight vs., 99 N. Y., 280 (1885); affirming 32 Hun, 15S Sot eit her Pata ec ns Rare Ale si aeanatnd Ae tine ee Feta 121, 284 Mayor, etc., of N. x, Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asylum vs., U1 AUT 1161800) cases 2 occ tin aed acateudesnaneomnmncalameuisl shoes 50, 52 Mayor of N. Y., Henderson vs., 92 U. S., 259 (1875).......... ccc ee eae 18, 24 Mayor, etc., of N. Y.; In re. 99 N. Y., 569 (1885)...... 0... cece eee aces 30 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Joyce vs., 20 How. Pr., 439 (1860)...........ecceeee 31 Mayor, etc., N. Y., Lalor vs., 12 Daly, 235 (1883)............... 0.0... eee 283 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Manhattan Ry. Co. vs., 18 F. B., 195 (1883)........ 26 Mayor, etc., of New York, Matter of, 11 Johns., 77, ete. (1814)........... 53 Mayor of N. Y., Mercantile Nat. Bank of N. Y. vs., 28 F. R., 776 (1886); affirmed in 121 U.S., 188 ..........00.. cece eeeeeeeeeeee, 80, 81 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., New York City Ins. Co. vs., 12N. Y. Leg. Obs., PGW ENTE) ancah suaecie coda aeienneamben acid nomechca cheek cin ec. 89 TABLE OF CASES. xvii: PAGE. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., People ex rel. Agnew vs., 2 Hill, 9 (1841)......... 311. Mayor, etc., of N. ¥., People ex rel. Moulton vs., 10 Wend., 605 (1883) 304, 336 Mayor of N. Y., Peyser vs., 70 N. Y., 497 (1877); reversing, 8 Hun, 413 .. 351 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Sharp vs., 31 Barb., 572 (1859); affirming, 9 Abb. HE 2G cic sarod anemeannmnninsaduneiadse Mike e Ras eee 31 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Shepherd’s Fold of the Protestant Epis. Church Vs., 96 N. Y., 187 (1884) Jghiaeduekesemawaduemelyetsiod ss setae ayes ee ax teens 38 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Smith vs., 34 How. Pr., 508 (1868). 3 cess ess asecacs 31 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Smith vs., 68 N. Y., 552; affirming, 6 Daly, 401 (LST) a scocotoersennvnnneuienies vase bawceek oe bee oa he Leonie Oa aeS 45, 185 Mayor, etc., of N. ¥., Sun Mut. Ins. Co. vs., 5 Sandf., 10, 14 (1851); affirmed in 8 N. Y., 241 (1853); see similar proceedings between same parties in 8 Barb., 450 (1850).................-. 31, 33, 35, 43, 89, 102 Mayor of N. Y., Townsend vs., 77 N. Y., 542 (1879) ; affirming, 16 Hun, G2 wise omcntamnhinnaunhenenatuaeime Watele diye Yee Ege OER Eo Oye ee Ee ey E amt 333 Mayor of N. Y., Trinity Church vs., 10 How. Pr., 138 (1854)... .43, 49, ba, 350 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Union Nat. Bank vs., 51 N. Y., 638 (1872); reversing, 51 Barb., 159 (1868) ............ eee eee eee ener tees 350, 352 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Wardens of St. aan Church vs., 44 Hun, 309 (VBE G Yes eeqcesveenexteslac edges teased alae rend Pea bu ait, hie a Co aia ce reistodle 3 50 Mayor, etc., of N. Y., Washington Heights Methodist Episcopal Church vs., 20 Hun, 297 (1880)........ 0.2 cece cece cece een een eeeenees 49, 333 ee etc., of N. Y., Wilson vs., 4 E. D. Smith, 675 (1855) ; 1 Abb. Pr., ANT B ST): seacccsrshea wtteinstaraarstarsha cies Weciensee ig stele ing Melee ee pale vee yee kunt wirties 329 Mayor, etc., of N. Y. Young Men’s Christian Assoc. vs., 44 Hun, 102 (LGBT se cerca cancer aa tiees: Die teense aia sae aa dao a Smale ana. Passa 51, 290 Mead, Gale vs., 4 Hill, 109; affirmed in 2 Den., 160 (1845) ....97, 232, 258, 257 Mead, Hansee vs., 27 Hun, 162 (1882) ......... cece eee ne ee cence eee eens 199 Mead vs. Stackpole, 40 Hun, 473 (1886)....... 0... cc cece eee cece ee eceeeeeeas 189 Memphis R. R. Co. vs. Commr’s, 112 U.S., 609 (1884)................000- 28 Mercantile National Bank of Cleveland, Whitbeck vs., 127 U.S., 193 nL AASBG) ei tcaced asaniehcian anc hevanii Da ware ree S agate: aaa a saat c ty As 82, 83 Mercantile Nat. Bank of N. Y. vs. Mayor, ete., of N. Y., 28 Fed. Rep’r, ~ 776; affirmed in 121 U.S., 138 (1886) ........ 0... ccc cece eee eee eee 80, 81 Merchants’ Nat. Bank vs. Supervisors of N. ¥., 5 Thomp, & C., 393 (1875); 3 Hun, 156 (1874); affirmed in 62 N. Y., 629 (1875)............. 308 Merchant, Spencer vs., 100 N. Y., 585 (1885)........... 0 cee ee cece ence ees 31 Merchants’ Nat. Bank, Tappan vs., 19 Wall., 490 (1873) .............. eee 85 Messeck vs. Supervisors of Columbia, 50 Barb., 190 (1867)........... 830, 355 Mersereau, Bank of Utica vs., 3 Barb. Ch., 581.. (1848).............00005 194, Messenger, Metcalf vs., 46 Barb., 325 (1864)............... 64, 84, 119, 120, 130 Metcalf vs. Messenger, 46 Barb., 325 (1864).............. 64, 84, 119, 120, 130 Methodist Episcopal Church vs. Mayor, 20 Hun, 298 (1880)...... ee 66, 284 Metropolitan Gas-Light Co., Matter of, 85 N. Y., 526 (1881).............. 32 Metzger vs. Attica and Arcdde R. R. Co., 79 N. Y., 171 (1879)............ 356 Michigan, Fargo vs., 121 U. S., 230 (1887)....... 0... cece cece eee ee eee ees 21 Michigan South. and North. Indiana R. R. Co., Bissell vs., 22 N. Y., 285 (1BG0) i. siigaivaisee w'sedld se ck We vie deadnaeuanpaNerisioewsants® sisters sae 108 xlviii TABLE OF CASES. PAGE. Michigan, Walling vs., 116 U.S., 446 (1886). 0.0.0... cece cece e eee e renee 20: Mickles vs. Tousley, 1 Cow., 114 (1823)........ 2.0 .e cece eee cece ee eee eres 69 Millard, Calhoun vs., 16 N. Y. State Rep., 46 (1888) ................0000- 359 Miller, Chesapeake and Ohio R. R. Co. vs., 114 U. 8., 176 (1885) ....... . 23 Miller, Matter of, 47 Hun, 394 (1888) ;45 Hun, 244 (1887); affirming5 Dem., NSD. t ack sa Ace hn sharon dewetets EN Ras yng WAGNER Di oa Geese soa 230, 231, 232, 234 Miller, Willis vs., 29 F. R., 238 (1886)........ 0... ce eee eee ees 24 Mills, Wheeler vs., 40 Barb., 644 (1868)............. 0... cee eee eee eee 129 Miner vs. Village of Fredonia, 27 N. Y., 155 (1863).................... 64, 112 Missouri vs. Lewis, 101 U.S., 30 (1879)....... 0.00... cee cece ee cee eee 28 Missouri, Hayes vs., 120 U.S., 71 (1886).......... 00 ccc cece cence eee 28. Mitchell, People exrel. Albany and Susquehanna R. R. Co. vs., 35N. Y., 551 (1866); affirming 45 Barb., 208................ 0. 0c eee eee eee 39, 41 Mohawk and Hudson R. R. Co. vs. Artcher, 6 Paige, 83 (1836)......... 328. Mohawk and Hudson R. R. Co. vs. Clute, 4 Paige, 394 (1834)...... 59, 95, 101 116, 328 Monk vs. Town of New Utrecht, 104 N. Y., 552 (1887)............00c eee ee 247 Monroe County Savings Bank vs. City of Rochester, 37 N. Y., 365 (1867), 76 . 90 Mooers vs. Smedley, 6 Johns. Ch., 28 (1822)........... ccc cece cece ees 327 Moore, People ex rel. Parsons Manuf. Co. V8., 11 N. Y. State Repr., SHOTS TD) eretacens, Sos cachet se hate tecter ns Mere ahaa Re ates itch 90, 135 Moran vs. New Orleans, 112 U.S., 69 (1884).......... ccc cece c eee eee eee 20 Moran vs. City of Troy, 9 Hun, 540 (1877).............0.00. ease sunsietggerane 30 Morgan vs. Parham, 16 Wall., 471 (1872)....... 00... c cece cece cence eee Sedan OD Morgan §. S. Co. vs. Louisiana, 118 U.S., 455 (1836)............... 17, 20, 25 Moring, People vs., 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 539 (1867) ; affirming 47 Barb., GAD ax acyere ss escent erode oe 19, 24, 34 Morse, Village of Angelica vs. 56 Barb., 382 (1867)...............0eeeeee 243 Morris, Woolsey vs., 96 N. Y., 311 (1884)...... 0.2... cece cece e sence es 163 Morse vs. Keyes, 6 How. Pr., 18 (1851)... 02... cece e eee cece eens 69 Morse, Jackson vs., 18 Johns., 441 (1821)....... 000.0 cece eee eee *.. 189 Moses, Blandon vs., 29 Hun, 607 (1883)........ 2.0... ccc ccc een eee e eens ees 255 Mosher, Shimer vs., 39 Hun, 158 (1886)........ 0.0... ccc eee eee e eens 166 Mosher, Witheril vs., 9 Hun, 412 (1876) .............ccc ccc cce ccc ee ee eeeee 278 Moul vs. Fields, 15 Abb. Pr., 6 (1862).......... 2... cc cece cece ccc e eee eeees 70 Mount Kisco, Washburn vs., 35 Hun, 829 (1885).............cceeeee cues 250 Moyer, People ex rel. Rome, etc., R. R. Co. vs., 104 N. Y., 377 (1887) .... 129 Munson, Rodman vs.. 13 Bard., 188 (1852) ....... 0... cc cece eee e eee cncees 37 Murray vs. City of Charleston, 96 U. S., 482 (1877); distinguished from People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 76 IN TY. 641879) arco eek 6 Partie rahe hk | ton Mohanlal olan h te 59 Murray, Woodward vs., 18 Johns., 400 (1820) ........... cece cece eee e eee 68 Mutual Bank, Mayor of Troy vs., 20 N. Y., 387 (1857)...............0000- 84 Mutual Benefit Life Ins., Co. vs. Supervisors of N. Y.,2 Abb. Pr. [N.8S.], 233 (1866); affirming 20 How. Pr., 416 ...... 0... cece cece cece ec eee ece 330 Mutual Ins. Co. of Buffalo vs. Supervisors of Erie, 4. N. Y., 442 (1851)... 89 Mutual Life Ins. Co. vs. Sage, 41 Hun, 535 (1886).............. 0.000000 163 TABLE OF CASES. xlix . is PAGE, Muzzy vs. Shattuck, 1 Den., 233 (1845) ; affirmed in 7 Hill, 584.......... 172 Myer vs. Orispell, 28 Barb., 54 (1858)... 0.0... ccc ccc cece eee cee e ee 254, 269 Mygatt vs. Washburn, 15 N. Y., 316 (1857) ........ 108, 113, 119, 122, 131, 345 N. Nassau Gas-Light Co. vs. City of Brooklyn, 89 N. Y., 409 (1882); affirm- In. 25 Huis bb Tekiccedaawawels xoadensmaurssedasies seencees sear eemeee 206 Nat’l Albany Bk. vs. Hill, 5 Fed. Rep., 218 (1880); S. C., Hills vs. Exch. Bless 105 W555 S19 SBT) scones ea grave eves dace $4540. 09 522 sha pew Doula ake’ 78 National Bank of Ballston vs. Supervisors of Saratoga, 106 N. Y., 488 (1887) ..... fleets aS a dc dt decd ea ects} ee subeat Saas ce ayaa gpa wpb dt ais Lotte 181 National Bank of Chemung vs. City of Elmira, 53 N. Y., 49; reversing 6 Lians;; 116 A871) escnsesci< sees vegessseee yee eee, Gasunncins cieuedenes 84, 135 Nat. BE. of Malone, Stockwell vs., 36 Hun, 583 (i885) UE Me ates eee sateah 70, 71 National Fire Ins. Co. vs. Mackay, 5 Abb. Pr. [N. 8.], 445 (1867)........ 170 National Fire Ins. Co., People vs., 61 How. Pr., 334; reversed in 27 Hun, 188 (1882)........ Re AUhe sha hats 19, 25, 34, 35, 203, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211 Neber vs. Hatch, 10 Abb. N. C., 431 (1881); affirmed in 88 N. Y., 657 (1882) a. swsctdigudacraottamehiedaodwts viewed owns tee stk a ek SHAR .... 186 New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., People vs., 26 N, Y., 303 (1863)....: 100 New Orleans vs. Houston, 119 U. S., 265 (1886)............. 20.0. cece e eee 24 New Orleans, Moran vs., 112 U. S., 69 (1884):... 0.20... eee e ccc ce eee e ev eee 20 New York and Harlem R. R. Co. vs. Lyon, 16 Barb., 651 (1853), 43, 109, 110 135, 164 New York and Oswego Mid. R. B. Co., Stevens vs., 13 Blatch., 104 AEB UD) cr cacsns in accinnsetrars cits cia eaedee is Sy sahe 4 eter nd SPR g hous seas ieauae 22, 14, 333 New York and Oswego Mid. R. RB. Co., Hewitt vs., 12 Blatch., 452...... 22 New York, Home Ins. Co. vs., 119 U. 8., 129 (1886); see 92 N. Y., 328.... 77 New York, Mercantile Bank vs. 121 U.S., 188 (1886) ; affirming, 28 F. R., OTT Ge 2 aise dt ti ata A te a het ee cP avd MG ae al 80, 81 New York, Philadelphia Fire Assoc. vs., 119 U. S., 110 (1886)......... 20, 28 New York Catholic Protectory, petition, Matter ‘of, 8 Hun, 91 (1876);- affirmed in 77 N. Y., 342 (1879) ......... 0... cece cece e ee eee eee 43, 66, 348 New York Central, etc., R. RB. Co., Matter of, 90 N. Y., 342 (1882)........ 121 New York City and Northern R. R. Co., Central Trust Co. vs., 15 N. Y. State Rep., 181 (1888) ........ 0. cece cee ce cece eee e eet e tense et eenees 105, 211 New York City Ins. Co. vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 12. N. Y¥. Leg. Obs.,’ Q80(1854) wud ayes ve eh sed oiale ales nae vis vane Hae p ku RSE wad algedtagien 89 New York Elevated R. R., Matter of, 70 N. Yi, 827 (87D iccceacsceeisens 32 New York Elevated R. R. ‘Co., Spader vs., 3 Abb. N. C., 467 (1877)...... 32 New York Floating Dry Dock Co., People vs., 92 N. Y., 487 ; see also 11 Abb. N. C., 40; 63 How. Pr., 451 (1882)................. 2 eee 34, 204, 206 New York Infant Asylum vs. Supervisors of Wostehostor, 81 Hun, 116 (1883) os aentele Sopods sea e dee Raetno idee oats anes eee MG aN mated Saatad ey haste 52 New York, Lake Erie and Western Ry. Co. vs. Supervisors of Dela- ware, 67 How. Pr., 5; affirmed in 30 Hun, 222 (1883).................. 246 New York Life Ins. Co. vs. Supervisors of N: Y., 4 Duer, 192 (1855)...... 329 vii 1 TABLE OF CASES. PAGE, New York, Ontario and Western R. R. Co. vs. Davenport, 65 How. Pr., 484 (1883) <4 eee uy obs eeanidenqeeenndsneraes cee os oes oes e wEeR eT ee eG a eeeE 334 Newark, Newark Banking Co. vs., 121 U. S., 163 (1887).................- 81 Newark Banking Co. vs. Newark, 121 U. S., 163 (1887)................05. 81 Newcomb, Kneetle vs., 31 Barb., 169 (1857); affirmed in 22 N. Y., 249 (LBB OY sors. satese Gece qeuveus severed 6 24 2aaroweeeiea dda DAM Ree beeen 54, 69 Newell vs. People, 7 N. Y., 993 (1852)... 00.0... eee 36, 37 Newman, Cook vs., 8 How. Pr., 523 (1858)......... 002. c ccc ence eet e eens 54 Newman vs. Supervisors of Livingston, 45 N. Y¥., 676 (1871)........ 181, 343 Newton vs. Keech, 9 Hun, 355 (1876)........... 0. cece cece ee cece eee ee 356 Newton, Knapp vs., 1 Hun, 268 (1874). ...... 2.0... cece cece eee ee eee eee 39 Newton, People ex rel. Beadle vs., 2 Alb. L. J., 487 (1870)............... 313 Niagara Elevating Co. vs. McNamara, 50 N. Y., 653 (1872); 2 Hun, 416, affirming 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon), 360........ ............. 162, 252 Nicholl, United States vs., 12 Wheat., 509.............. TAERHERRRAA RHE OE 173 Nichols, Matter of, 54 N. Y., 62 (1878)..... 0... cece cece cece eee 109, 114, 168 Noble, Fire Department of N. Y. vs., 3 E. D. Smith, 440 (1854)... 25, 229, 226 Nolan, Western R. R. Co. vs., 48 N. Y., 513 (1872) ............2.00 0. *, 328, 331 Norsworthy vs. Bergh, 16 How. Pr., 315 (1858)..... 2.0... cece eee eee 170 North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., Matter of, 63 Barb., 571 (1872).... 94 Norton, Clark vs., 49 N. Y., 243 (1872); affirming 58 Barb., 434 (1871), and 8 Lans., 484.000.0000 cece eee cece cece eae 43, 55, 71, 112, 119, 131, 132 Nott, Thorn vs., 1 Thomp. & Co., adden., 22 (1873) ............00 cee eee 264 oO. O’Conor, Donahue vs., 45 Super. Ct. (J. & 8.), 278 (1879)............00008 198 Odell vs. Odell, 21 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 90 (1884)........... 00... cece ee eee 164 O’Donnell vs. McIntyre, 37 Hun, 615 (1885)........0.0 00. eee eee eee 130, 138 Odell, Storm vs., 2 Wend., 287 (1829)........... dues Sresbstde yids Moe hee it Bae OA 311 Ogdensburg, People ex rel. Westbrook vs., 48 N.Y., 390 (1872).. 55, 59, 62, 71 127, 313 Oliver, People ex rel. Clark vs., 1 Thomp. & C., 570 (1873)..........-.... 196 Olmstead, People ex rel. Geneseo Co. Bank vs., 45 Barb., 644 (1866).. 84, 94 Onderdonk, Scott vs., 14 N. Y., 9 (1856). 0.0.0.0... cece cece cee eee ees 330 Ontario Bank vs. Bunnell, 10 Wend., 186 (1833).................. 88, 116, 344 O’Reilly vs. Good, 42 Barb., 521 (1864)......... 0.0... cece cee ee ees ... 165, 351 O’Rourke, Lamoreaux vs., 3 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 15 (1866) .............. 258 Osborn, Albany and Schenectady R. R. Co. vs., 12 Barb., 223 (1851)..... 101 116, 126 Osterhoudt vs. Brackett, 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 222, GBT UBB) sige a rca oick on deve se ehili ah sile as i elaba taeia ea eNaaioapna a4 delay eee alate asain 357 Osterhoudt vs. Butler, 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 222, GBT (BBD) wicasice Reh vara ates Wiel ated Stas ease car cH lle taeda tras dara dieaes 357 Osterhoudt vs. Hyland, 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 222, G37 (C1885) oieec ewes ee a dca gd (2y PeRO es Eaters auses Becprdignenicens Girne ewe wees 357 Osterhoudt vs. Murphy, 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 222, 637... 357 Osterhoudt vs. Rigney, 98 N. Y., 222 (1885); affirming, 27 Hun, 167 (1882), 357 Osterhoudt vs. Supervisors of Ulster, 98 N. Y., 239 (1885)................ 359 TABLE OF CASES. li PAGE. Osterhoudt vs. Trodden, 27 Hun, 167 (1882); affirmed in 98 N. Y., 222, 637 (W885): s senwesavainmannenesoyied Kaan G8 eiids Seca ds oie e ed caada CaN ee eee 357 Osterhoudt, People ex rel. Hoffman vs., 24 N.Y. Weekly Dig., 101 (1885), 323 Ostrander, Jansen vs., 1 Cow., 670 (1824)....... 0... cc cece cece eee eee 172 Oswego Bank vs. Oswego, 12 Wend., 544 (1834)...............0.00 2s ee eee 84 Oswego, Oswego Bank vs., 12 Wend., 544 (1834)......0....0....ec eee eee 84 ‘Oswego Starch Factory vs. Dolloway, 21 N. Y., 449 (1860)..... 89, 92, 96, 101 117, 135 Ottendorfer vs. Agnew, 13 Daly, 16 (1884).......... 0.0.2.0 cc se eee eee sveue SBT Outwater vs. Mayor of New York, 18 How. Pr., 572 (1860).............. 31 Overing vs. Foote, 43 N. Y., 290 (1871) ; subsequent decisions in 65 N. Y., DGS (UBUD) 2s es Suisse sk cessed Rae eg nse 120, 124, 130, 135, 152, 331, 333 Owen, Vail vs., 19 Barb., 22 (1854). ..... 0... 53 P, Pacific Mail 8S. 8. Co. vs. Mayor, 57 How. Pr., 511 (1879)... ........ 315, 333 Pacific §. S. Co. vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 46 How. Pr., 319, 343 (1873)..... 43 Pacific Mail 8. S. Co., Hays vs., 17 How. U.8., 596 (1854)................ 14. Paddock, Upham vs., 13 Hun, 571 (1878).......... 2.00.00 c cece eee ences 172 Palmer, McMahon vs., 102 N.Y.,176 (1886); affirming, 11 Daly ,214 (1864), and 12 Daly, 362 (1864)............00.c cece cece cece eee eee 30, 44, 84, 86, 283 Palmer, Stuart vs., 74 N. Y., 183 (1878)...... 2.0... 0 cece cece cece eee 30, 42 Pangburn vs. Smith, 4 Barb., 246 (1848)........ Eunatiadyive thee teins es elie 263 Parham, Morgan vs., 16 Wall., 471 (1872)....... 0... ce cece eee een eens 75 Parish vs. Golden, 35 N. Y., 462 (1866).......... 00 ce. cceeeeee eee eeeees 136, 138 Park Bank vs. Wood, 24.N. Y., 93 (1861)....... 0.0... cece eee cece eee eee 96 Parker vs. Brown, 17 Barb., 145 (1853)........... 0... c cece cece eee ees 264, 265 Parker, People ex rel. Delaware, etc., Canal Co. vs., 45 Hun, 432 (1887).. 119 321 Parsons, Mayre vs., 114 U.S., 325 (1885)...... 0... ccc cece ee eee eect e eens 23 Passenger Cases, 7 How. U.S., 283, 405, 453 (1849).............. 17, 18,21, 24 Patchin vs. Ritter, 27 Barb., 34 (PSS S) iia ve nate, aoe sel leans 64, 165 Patterson, Hudson River Bridge Co. vs., 74 N. Y., 365 (1878) ; affirming HY AEN SOT coy persds ous caea eaasisetigncnnaet oe Res ges wie aaa OEE Wee om 92,117, 249 Paul vs. Virginia, 8 Wall., 168 (1868)............... cece ee ee ee eee eee 220 Pauly vs. Wahle, 29 Hun, 116 (1883)............. 0.0 cee c eect eee eee 165 Peabody, Davis vs., 10 Barb., 91 (1850)... 0.0... 0.202 70 Pearsall, Franklin vs., 21 Jones & S., 271 (1886)............ 163, 195, 284, 296 Peck, Bennett vs., 28 Hun, 447 (1882) 2 vay ws no 29 see che emiemambaseans “172, 195 Peekskill Savings Bank, Hills vs.; 26 Hun, 161; 101 N. Y., 490 (1886). . 39 Pembina Mining Co. vs. Pa., 125 U. S.., 181888). cae cece geen asa 907 Pennock, People vs., 60 N. Y., 421 (1875) DAG itis addaatwen bee tenaeyenin 179 Pennsylvania, Cook vs., 97 U. S., 566 (1878) .......- 0. eee e eee eee eee 19, 24 Pennsylvania, Gloucester Ferry Co. vs., 114 U. S., 196 (1885) ........... » 20 Pennsylvania, Reading Ry. Co. vs. (State Tax on Gross Railway Receipts), 15 Wall., 284 (1872)........0 0... c ce cece eee e ene ene ee ees 19 Pa,, Pembina Mining Co. vs., 125 U.S., 181 (1888)........... cc eee eee eee 207 Pennsylvania, Phila. Steamship Co. vs., 122 U. 8., 326 (1887)...... ..... 21 hi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Penney, Hall vs., 11 Wend., 44 (1833).......... 60656 cece e cece eee cee ee 68 People vs. Albany Ins. Co., 92 N. Y., 458 (1883); affirming 29 Hun, 204 (1883) cwaainieckeeeeys soos BERS Ieee eee teem onemeeoneeeee ake 206 People vs. Barker, 48 N. Y., 74 (1871)... 2.0... eee eee 43, 106 People vs. Brackett, 4 Wall, 459 (1866)....... 2.2... cece cece eee eee 7 People vs. Brooks, 4 Den., 469 (1847)... 2... ccc cece ce cee eee ee 18 People vs. Brooklyn, etc., Ry., 89 N. Y., 75 (1882)............. 0c cee eee eee 32 People vs. Commissioners, 104 U.S., 466 (1881) ; affirming 10 Hun, 255; 73 INS Meng OO os cdivervnson deuce tian aaa ends RIERA Kenia enceni GoanRte 19 People vs. Commr’s, 4 Wall., 244 (1886); S. C., 6 Am. ee Reg. [N. S.], 246:? and see: 94: Uj:8 5/418. s ccc ce ney earn sdwae mea tesacee wheter wade 79 People vs. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 107 U.S., 59 (1882).... 18 21, 25 People vs. Edye, 11 Daly, 132 (1882) ........ 0. cece cece ee tenes 18 People vs. Equitable Trust Co. of New London, 96 N. Y., 387 (1884). .42, 204 205, 207, 210 People vs. Fire Assoc. of Phila., 92 N. Y., 311 (1883).......... 27, 34, 210, 228 People vs. Floating Dry Dock Co., 92 N. Y., 487 (1883)................... 34 People vs. Gold and Stock Tel. Co., 98 N. Y., 67 (1885) ....... 27, 102, 204, 205 206, 207, 210, 211 People vs. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y., 516 (1887); affirming 36 Hun, 610 (1885) 30, 34, 146, 147, 187, 189 People vs. Home Ins. Co., 92 N. Y., 328 (1883); see 119 U. S., 129 ..26, 35, 203 206, 208, 210, 211 People vs. Horn Silver Mining Co., 105 N. Y., 76 (1887); affirming 38 FEU O76 sate Heed ane yi Vetere oes ek neces c st aaa ad 204, 207 People vs. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 99 N. Y., 181 (1885) ; affirming 32 Hun, BID test oer Bene hare eee auenenatte Spantee weed aise 207 . People vs. Moring, 3 Abb, Ct. App. Dec., 539 (1867); affirming 47 Barb., GAD adh Bora soled. Sed yak tak gate cosehslsaaignaunaus oui das Olea SON A oe Re ee ad 19, 24, 34 People vs. National Fire Ins. Co., 61 How. Pr., 334; reversed in 27 Hun, 188: (1882)... 0c sccusssacevecsuecveres 19, 25, 34, 35, 203, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211 People vs. Newell, 7 N. Y., 993 (1852) ........ cc. cece cece cece cence anne 36, 37 People vs. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 26 N. Y., 303 (1863)...... 100 People vs. New York Floating Dry Dock Co., 92 N. Y., 487; see, also, 11 Abb. N. C., 40; 63 How. Pr., 451 (1882).................00005 34, 204, 206 People vs. Pennock, 60 N. Y., 421 (1875). 0.0.0.0... ccc cece cece eee 179 People vs. Ross, 15 How. Pr., 63 (1857) ......... 2 cece ccc e cence eee ee sees 132 People vs. Spring Valley Hydraulic Gold Co., 92 N. Y., 383 (1883)....... 204 206, 207, 210 People vs. Sugaian of Livingston, 17 N. Y., 486 (1858) ............... 148 People vs. Supervisors of N. Y., 18 Wend., 605 (1836).................... 89 People vs. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20 (1842); affirmed in 7 id., B04 51s cei mae cntiek Sees heen Eee Ee ay 9 ite Se noes. 84 People vs. Supervisors of Ulster Co., 36 Hun, 491 (1885) ........... 80, 34, 42 People vs. Supervisors of Westchester, 15 Barb., 607 (1853) .......... 132, 136 People vs. Wall Street Bank, 39 Hun, 525 (1886)............. 80, 284, 288, 320 People vs. Weaver, 100 U. S., 589 (1879)......... 0. cece cece eee cececeeceses 79 TABLE OF CASES. liii PAGE People vs. Williams, 3 Supm. Ct. (T. & C.), 838 (1874).........0 eee ee ees 34 People ex rel. Academy of the Sacred Heart vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 6 Hun, 109 (1875); affirmed in 64 N. Y., 658 (1876)................ 49, 66, 314 People ex rel. Adams vs. Coleman, 41 Hun, 307 (1886) ................65- 320 People ex rel. Agnew vs. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 2 Hill, 9 (1841) .......... 311 People ex rel. Albany, etc., Bridge Co. vs. Weaver, 34 Hun, 322 (1884); affirming, 67 How. Pr., 477 (1884) ....6. 00... cece cece ence eee ee eee 127, 135 People ex rel. Albany and Susquehanna R. R. Co. vs. Mitchell, 35 N. Y., 551 (1866); affirming, 45 Barb., 208........... 0.2... c cece eee ence ee 39, 41 People ex rel. American Fire Ins. Co. vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 28 Hui 261- (882) gcc neces aans saree eed ds eee ese s Basewedaaeewrkeennses sé 101 People ex rel. American Geographical Soc. vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 11 Hun, 505 (1877). 0.0... 0c cece ccc cece e cee eee e eee eeeees 67 People ex rel. American Linen Thread Co. vs. Assessors of Mechanic- ville, 6 Lans., 105 (1871); S. C. (more fully), 61 Barb., 273...... 77, 97, 318 People ex rel. Amer. Linen Thread Co. vs. Howland, 6 Lans., 105; 61 Barbys 2USASTL) scree eatags cases sembaaemededecadonnatades avons 94, 133 People ex rel. Andrews vs. Brinckerhoff, 40 Hun, 381 (1886)............. 351 People ex rel. Andrews vs. Jackson, 1 N. Y. State Repr., 491 (1886)..... 340 People ex rel. Averill'vs. Works, 7 Wend., 486 (1832).................04 341 People ex rel. Babbitt vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 41 How. Pr., 459 (1871)... 77 People ex rel. Bank vs. Supervisors, 67 N. Y., 109 (1876)................. 47 People ex rel. Bank of Commerce vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 40 Barb., 335; reversed on another point in 2 Wall., 400 (1863); also, 2 Black., 620, 26 N. Y., 163 (1868) 00.0.0... cece cee ee eec eee eeeeee 43, 58, 76, 83, 94 People ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth vs. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 2 Black., 620; reversing, S. C., as People ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 192 (1861); 32 Barb., 509 (1860) ; 20 How. Pr., 182, and 18 Id., 245, ..17, 50, 76, 78, 89, 94, 135 People ex rel. Bank of Montreal vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 59 N. Y., 40 (1874); reversing, 1 Thomp. & C., 630....... 0... c eee eee eee eee 63 People ex rel. Bank of Watertown vs. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 1G (B41) forse, “ermrarinthanserecncee acne ate Aten uae BS OA I ior cantaee aac 89 People ex rel. Bay State, etc., Co. vs. McLean, 80 N. Y., 254 (1880); affirming, 17 Hun, 204 (1879); 5 Abb. N. C., 137 (1878)..... 63, 112, 117, 315 People ex rel. Benjamin vs. Hillhouse, 1 Lans., 87 (1869)................ 155 People ex rel. Bowne vs. Assessors of Flushing, 3 N. Y. State Repr., 148 (1886): ss esesewaaanmadsehadalns poree ida ewe awe Gy eenden Ma teaueueddete es 17 People ex rel. Broadway, etc., BR. RB. Co. vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 1 Thomp. & C., 635 (1873); S. C., 46 How Pr., 227......... 00. cece ence 97 People ex rel. Brodie vs. Cox et al., as ‘Assessors, etc., 14 N. Y. State Repr., 692 (88@)oscveisseacuees deesuuseesrei crows udesdaaanee 116 People ex rel. Brooklyn City R. R. Co. vs. Assessors of eorlyn, 92 N. Y., 430 (1883); affirming 27 Hun, 614 (1882)....... 124, 125, 203, 205, 210 People ex rel. Buffalo Mut. Gas-Light Co. vs. Steele, 1 Buff. Super. Ct. (Sheldon), 345 (1873); affirmed in pt. in 56 N. Y., 664.............. 92 People ex rel. Buffalo and State Line R. R. Co. vs. Barker, 48 N. Y., 70 (ISTD)exesse chanasnwiontatnns 43, 89, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 126, 127, 133, 134 liv TABLE OF CASES. PAGE, People ex rel. Buffalo and State Line R. R. vs. Fredericks, 48 Barb., 173 (1866); affirmed as Same vs. Barker, 48 N. Y., 70, overruling in effect Albany and Schenectady R. R. Co. vs. Owen, 12 Barb., 223 (UBS) 25,2:0. ccs i gwedielteotia ne ceunie dlteh oh eldspnlanaaieees ed 58, 108, 109, 116, 126, 127, 132, 312 People ex rel. Burhans vs. Supervisors of Ulster, 32 Hun, 607 (1884)..... 157 People ex rel. Burrows vs. Supervisors of Orange Co., 17 N. Y., 285 (1858); affirming 27 Barb., 575 (1857). ..... 2... occ eee 33 People ex rel. Butchers, etc., Co. vs. Assessors, 100 N. Y., 597 (1885).... 98 People ex rel. Cagger vs. Dolan, 36 N. Y., 59 (1867); overruled in People ex rel. Williams vs. Weaver, 100 U. S8., 539 (1879) .......... 78, 85, 89, 106 People ex rel. Campbell vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 38 Hun, 536 (1886), 116 People ex rel. Canajoharie Nat. Bank vs, Supervisors of Montgomery, OU NG Nesp 109: (876) a cas ccc hits wen aw “Sieaiaesauan cecamebaeons 22,47, 347 People ex rel. Caswell vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 17 Hun, 293 (1879) .. 115 People ex rel. Chamberlain vs. Forrest, 96 N. Y., 544 (1884) ; affirming SO ERON 210 oi och t ook medahonds nga teewmn'cens de oid eh oD ae ee ee 130, 327 People ex rel. Church ys. Supervisors of Allegany, 15 Wend., 198 (1836).. 311 People ex rel. Church of the Holy Communion vs. Assessors of Green- burgh, 36 Albany L. Journ., 196, 106 N. Y., 671 (1887); affirming 43 HUD, O80 6.33 ecdesntercuncanmecrantonend Heaaendoetenanseoyedenee oes 320 People ex rel. Citizens’ Gas- Light Co. vs. Assessors of Brooklyn, 39 ING Mig SL 868) tecrrarictnnnenrias doves alas tieieveese 58, 92, 97, 98, 101, 102 People ex rel. Clark vs. Oliver, 1 Thomp. & C., 570 (1878). ......0....000e 196 People ex rel. Commercial Ins. Co. vs. Supervisors of N. Y., 18 Wend., GOB C.B36) i sc.s sii. ote atlanta anibiacteneriblalnn lamp ave asiemeneaded hae guests Gohan stein x Ra 89 People ex rel. Commr’s vs. Supervisors of Dutchess, 1 Hill, 50 (1841)... 250 337 People ex rel. Commissioners of Washington Park vs. Banks, 67N. Y., B69 (1S 76)xercrweweudsin la tonite nana cB yi Si TRCN GS § 1G 32, 34 People ex rel. Commercial Ins. Co. vs. Supervisors of N.Y. 18 Wend., EOE LST YS yc teats et sate Sep alc ecient rns See SOTO 315 People ex rel. Corwin vs. Walter, 68 N. Y., 403 (1877)............ eee eee People ex rel. Coudert vs. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 31 Hun, 235 (1883) ........ 00. Bain Shas Dear aoc ats tee ken as a ann ele 316 People ex rel. Crowell vs. Lawrence, 41 N. Y., 123, 187 (1869)......... 30, 41 People ex rel. Cunningham vs. Roper, 35 N. Y., 629 (1866). .22, 23, 46, 71, 72 People ex rel. Darrow vs. Commr’s of N. Y., 33 Daly, 933 (1888)......... 66 People ex rel. Davies vs. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 47N. Y., BOL S72) eck oacaeorece se ent exaneeses aidiuatetebdacmen anomie 22, 31 People ex rel. Davis vs. Hill, 53 N. Y., 547 (1873) ; affirming 65 Barb., 435.. 314 People ex rel. Delaware, etc., Canal Co. vs, Parker, 45 Hun, 432 (1887) 119, 321 People ex rel. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. vs. Benes, 2 How. Pr. PN Si lpe454 (1885): saritecentyasembtengentes anne dad due sone ubueczec deeds 128 People ex rel. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. vs. Keator, 2 How. Pri [N. Sily 4791885) cones pes yyas cade se enss ped masa otdieiauoeieene 127, 135 People ex rel. Dunkirk, etc., R, R., Co. vs. Cassity, 2 Lans., 298 (1870); 46 N. Y., 46 (1871) ........... ... 41, 45, 58, 89, 92, 101, 103, 108, 109, 110, 321 TABLE OF CASES. lv PAGE. People ex rel. Dunkirk, W. and P. R. R. Co. vs. Batchellor, 55 N. Y., 128 (1873)...... wai bneal ede nA GP arena Ta shan chaste his Cessls a He in abel 39, People ex rel. Eastern Trans. Line vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 26 BUT, 446) (18B82) i ciacierarcens veces oy a ae a unely a Pelee yw Aa bs ai elgaadotleree 204, People ex rel. Eckerson vs. Christie, 14 N. Y. State Rep., 525 (1888)..... 325, People ex rel. Electric Lines Co. vs. Squire, 107 N. Y., 602 (1888); 12 N. Y. St. B., 882 (1888) 0.0. c eee ccceeee ee eeeee eee ees People ex rel. Eno vs. Commr’s, 10 Abb. N. C., 35 (1881) . .......... 287, People ex rel. Equitable Life Assurance Soc, vs. Chapin, 103 N. Y., 635; and see 39 Hun, 230, and 7 N. Y. State Rep., 871 (1886).............. is People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. vs. Bearsdley, 52 Barb., 105 (1868); affirmed DAD NE Yi Gl Qi cis uadecrruaata soins iannlnn ns Sul chek eae Maan ae aoa os vemions 43, 56, People ex rel. Rewarets vs. dupervisars of Ulster, 93 N. Y., 398 (1883) . People ex rel. Exchange Bank vs. Board of Education, 46 Barb., 598 (BGG essere baie hare testiel tinea a ety ec maa teeta tet tales hema fs 76, People ex rel. Ferrer vs. Commr’s of Taxes, 42 Hun, 560 (1886) ......... People ex rel. First Nat. Bank of Kingston vs. Supervisors of Ulster, 81 HOW. Pr, 237 (1864) sss amcasivamvan Gvaaaas vied Of as Sesh ae eta Baia People ex rel. Gallatin Nat. Bank vs., Commissioners of Taxes, 67 N. Y., 516 (1876); affirming 8 Hun, 536 (1876); S. C., 4 Otto, 419 (1876) 79, 85, People ex rel. Gass v. Lee, 28 Hun, 469 (1882)..................0.00048. 32, People ex rel. Genesee Co. Bank vs. Olmstead, 45 Barb., 644 (1866). . .84 People ex rel. Gerry vs. Commr’s of N. Y.,5 N. Y. State Rep’r, 311 TSG Arete kessreed ah idee eo etre ns ech alee tice one alle Miata 317, People ex rel. Gihon vs. Assessors Town of Flushing, 6 N. Y. State "Reps 3 (1886) sans oscil anaiaulanwanscanniescs e234 Pakbenae iawateels 123, People ex rel. Gillies vs. Suffern, 68 N. Y., 322 (1877); affirming, 6 Hun, People ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. vs. Ferguson, 38 N. Y., 89 (1868). .94, People ex rel. Grace vs. Gray, 45 Hun, 243°(1887)...... 287, 306, 321, 322, People ex rel. Griffin vs. Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, 4.N. Y., 419 (1851), TEVELslOg 9 Barb. 5,535.02. .c00cnceskc ives scene mencecnis 29, 37, 39, People ex rel. Groat vs. Albany C. P., 7 Wend., 485 (1832)............... People ex rel. Haddock vs. Cady, 41 Hun, 539 (1886)..................... People ex rel. Haines vs. Smith, 45 N. Y., 772, 781 (1871) affirming 3 DANS 290 6 acess manana nnnis Heads i Sag BeR ELLE tawationsnig 4), People ex rel. Haneman vs. Commissioners, 85 N. Y., 655 (1881)......... People ex rel. Haneman vs. Commissioners, 10 Hun, 255 (1877) ; affirmed in S. C., 73 N. Y., 607 (1878), and in 104 U.S.. 466 (1881)....... ... 19, People ex rel. Hanover Bank vs. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 37 Barb, 686 CIBG2Y 6. ved ooviisaridarndtvasnsararunestddes esi eywue sage ee es 18, People ex rel. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. vs. Coleman, 44 Hun, 47 (1887) . People ex rel. Hartford and Conn. W. BR. R. Co. vs. Frost, 10 N. Y. State Rep., 878 (1887) .........0..cccece cece vc ceecenee cute eeeenes 129, People ex rel. Hermance vs. Supervisors of Ulster, 10 Hun, 545; affirmed in 71 N. Y., 481 (1877) 2.0... 0000000 c cc ccc cee cues e ec ee eens eee People ex rel. Hoffman vs. Bug, 13 Abb. N. C., 169 (1883)....... 410, 112, 41 215 324 326 102 316 340 127 . 240 85 73 341 126 33 93 323 320 273 100 323 312 349 303 313 316 24 77 92 323 348 115 lvi TABLE OF CASES. PAGE, People ex rel. Hoffman vs. Osterhoudt, 24 N.Y. Weekly Dig., 101 (1885), 323 People ex rel. Hopkins vs. Supervisors of Kings, 52 N. Y., 556 (1873) 34 37 People ex rel. Hoyt vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 224, etc. (1861), reversing 33 Barb., 116; affirming 21 How. Pr., 385 (1861)..... 4, 43 61, 65, 73, 74, 108, 113 People ex rel. Hudson River R. R. Co. vs. Pierce, 31 Barb., 188 (1860)... 248 246 People ex rel. Ithaca Savings Bank vs. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 (1883)... 58 67, 73, 90, 91 People ex rel. Jefferson vs. Gardner, 51 Barb., 354 (1868) ......... 48, 65, 112 People ex rel. Jefferson vs. Smith, 88 N. Y., 576 (1882)............... 65, 327 People ex rel. Kennedy vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 35 N. Y., 423 et seq. (1866); 8. C., 4 Wall, 244 (1866)............... eee eee 61, 76, 78, 79, 85 People ex rel. Keystone Gas Co. vs. Assessors of Olean, 15 N. Y. State R6pigA61 (1888); coos Fciashcoremsienrondamrmnunres se ures ign teccens 91, 118 People ex rel. Knickerbocker Fire Ins. Co. vs. Coleman, 44 Hun, 410; affirmed in 107.N. Vi, 541 (1887) 2200225 oncacducdweeine ne swndedinnne oye 100 People ex rel. Law vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 9 Hun, 609 (1877) ...... 315 People ex rel. Leonard vs. Commissioners of Taxes, 90 N. Y., 63 (1882).. 76 327 People ex rel. Lincoln vs. Ass’ors Town of Barton, 44 Barb., 148, etc., (1865); S. C., 29 How. Pr., 372 (1865).............. 43, 58, 71, 77, 84, 89, 338 People ex rel. Lockport City Bank vs. Board of Education of Lockport, 46 Barb., 588, et seq. (1866)... 2.2... 43,76, 85 (1858) x cialsiveni nes sac aw ue Dh PA A ceca cise NanmanGealvans Raoee bean wus 133; 136, 337 People ex rel. McConvill vs. Hills, 35 N. Y., 449 eine reversing 46 Barb.,3940 sxesudeaued evan at ows 8 oP waeiete desman tidlenpianee ow eranalads asm 31 People ex rel. Mclean vs. Flagg, 46 N. Y., 401 (1871)... Bich namraadmau uae ane 84 People ex rel. McMaster vs. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20, (1842); affirmed as Supervisors of Niagara vs. People ex rel. McMaster, fn? HM, B04: oy conn ery auw oerewoee ces nasiumeumalnineunmnimnanns 88, 95, 96 People ex rel. McMaster, Supervisors of Niagara vs., 7 Hill, 504; affirming S. C. as People ex rel. McMaster vs. Supervisors of Niagara, 4-Hill, 203. sess: bees deeteesaeenemaionee sheet SESSION LAWS OF NEW YORK. AGE. Laws 1816, ch. 160, p. 172; amended by L. 1830, ch. 2, p. 3; repealed by L. 1843, ch. 230, p. 314, and L. 1881, ch, 503, p. 677, SCC. 1....... 0.00008 306: Laws 1819, ch. 69, p. 73, secs. 1,2; source of L. 1882, ch. 410, sec. 935 . 301 Laws 1821, Chis 4G icasapisiaic gata daa te adiee €s ev Mesmreieaibnsin amnion amerbaratibes 170 Tia WS 1828 MCD 25 Tecdccrticcessasicndcnruarrramrardea ns Gphuiaxad oGchd Has Soe gino nd aa oennenee 22 Laws 1823, ch, 262, p. 390..... 0.00.0 ceceeeeeee eens ch eRe RO owes 55, 111 amended by L. 1825, ch. 83, Pp. TOS os etteeal yipnlge heldapieminamspmmnleteals 289" Laws 1825, ch. 83, p. 123; amended by: L. 1830, ch. any, p. 865; repealed by Ti: 1843, ch. 230, ps S14vvsccaavess ove ere ee Ges ees rdekswames needa bbecs 306 Laws 1825, ch. 83, p. 123; amended by L. 1839, ch. 170, p. 148............ 306° Laws 1825, ch. 83, p. 123; amending L. 1823, ch. £62, p. 390.............. 289 Laws 1830, ch. 2, p. 3; aniending I. 1816, ch. 160, p. 172; repealed by L. 1843, ch. 250, p. 314; by L. 1881, ch. 503, p. 677, sec. 1.............. 008 306 Laws 1830, ch. 53, p. 39, sec. 5; see L, 1882, ch. 410, sec. 824, subd. 10.... 288 Laws 1830, ch. 108, p. 112; amended by L. 1844, ch. 266, sec. 1, p. 397; repealed by L. 1850, ch. 298, sec. 114, p. 663 .......... 00.0. eee 197 Laws 1830, ch. 307, p. 365; amending L. 1825, ch. 83, p. 123; repealed by 1; 1843). Chi 930, PuBle seus cicaiosnslsawiaendauaddddaaen vaermaulex alee cae eae 306° Laws 1830, ch. 307, p. 385; repealed by L. 1881, ch. 537, p. 720, sec. 1..... 306- Laws 1831, ch. 119, p. 164; superseded by L. 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; repealed by: Gi, 1881, Gh. -537; Pe 120) SOC. Voce escecssaisianseesesneypuocnaaisbutiedon a4 ar sole ace ave oe 310° Laws 1831, ch. 206, p. 247; amended by L. 1832, ch. 317, p. 547........... 268 Toaws 1891, Cb2O77: ps S48 casas nadaacieouswaares wi seciseasicase pedis cabee 361 Tia WS1892, (CH 4a, cruaelccacte nica cisinaeannsaracs sudan dueaaian ae gaa teaudaannens 51 Tid ws'8e2, CH; 107) Pe 110 wcisaneg.choudeaconwemadinveeg aie Qavines Goer eel stow’ 240 Tia ws'1899, Ch. 279, Pp. 49a cccsaecasicne dseanesddesenedeesene’s seesuvens vases 360 Laws 1892, ch. 274, p. 480; affecting 2 BR. S., 1214, sec. 4..............46. 245 Laws 1852, ch. 317, p. 547; amending L. 1831, ch. 206, p. 247............. 268: Da ws199), Ch, 06, P. DSi. ccciav unconcerned y es aaa vk eebanenweans - 48 Da ws'1833, ch; 181,860; 23.5 201 a srcancsewawenueuien sacs ee apie Ux weaseenas 48 Laws 1833, ch..250,, Ds 855 conv ccoynieuciesdscveuenss vases steeasees eae eswnn 60 Laws 1834, ch. 35, p. 30; repealed by LL, 1851, ch. 886, p. 734...........005 310° Laws 1834, ch. 299, sec. 5, p. 561............... soeee eye sca UL agangusiawiiy 58: Toaws'1835, Chal 5.\py De sanrss dite ncsasuellamioeeteyy ees ae ecne ea eda iatnane 19% lxxvi Laws 1835, ch. Laws 1835, ch. Laws 1835, ch. ‘ Laws 1835, ch. sec. 32 Laws 1825, ch. Laws 1836, ch. Laws 1836, ch. Laws 1876, ch. Laws 1837, ch. Laws 1837, ch. INDEX TO STATUTES AND PAGE. 67, p. 56; repealed by L, 1843, ch. 230, p. 314 ..........65- 306 67, p. 56; repealed by L. 1881, ch. 537, p. 745 ..... .....-- 306 DT Ps LOW ez, 3.5.2. ccscdsaycotnict esas Cua ean qarsinreaeoueacs COS tA eResaan™ 360 154, p. 163; amending 2 R. S., 1215, sec. 22; 21. 8., 1223, vibra ied Seecatic le Reacanaedsal aap arias Meee siege Bae eR TH TE 241, 242 308; Pe S00 ayy vere eara meinen Melisa Ren G pe AeA Sheu eek 268 LUT: Dp Adore kde emeainn, Ghee esuareeawes auseeeuTs 149 SOE sescaiete: bealendveunuigempavainunwved eeGene B4ikd RagEONSELE CARERER DAS TEASE 127 461, pe 102, SCCS2-1 28 iota ada dea needs Sicoewes Sane s 167 OI sashes yo Garin -Che Toa ieccaweee asses ished ecacuees Sas oe ee eReine eee ees 37 Laws 1872; chs T7encc... seamen eg, ease $e5 eh needed er ender ee mendes 31 Taws 1873) CH. AIG: noc sts eee coun s ous ace tet paSeeetaanass 22, 25, 111, 339 Laws 1873, ch. 119, p. 202; amending L. 1870, ch. 361.................... 150 Laws 1873, ch. 119, p. 202, secs. 1,4, 16; amending L. 1870, ch. 361, sec. 1; amending L. 1849, ch. 194, sec. 1, p. 293................ eee eee eee eee 150, 341 Laws 1873, ch. 119, p. 202, se@. 1.0.0... c eee cece eee eens im ibecic cats 111 amending and adding to L. 1849, ch. 194, sec. 4........... Leaoes 150, 341 Haws 1873, ch. 119, p. 202, sec. 1; amending L. 1849, ch. 194, sec. 4; as amended by L. 1870, ch. 361, sec. 1............. 2: cece ee ee TS cat Nota ctats 150, 341 Laws 1873, ch. 120, p. 202; supplementing L. 1855, ch. 427............... 200 has 1873); Chi: 195): is S14 on ga laccnsoy othev ete aaeadde ehneshcnueer aes 48 Laws 1873, ch. 325, p. 826; amending L. 1867, ch. 664, p. 1707............ 347 aws 1873, 6h 8273 Py Ae4at occcna woes tae decd sadietiedod howe eased anny 160 Laws 1873, ch. 327; supplementing L. 1859, ch. 312..................0.0. 156 ‘Laws 1873, ch. 327, p. 464; amending L. 1859, ch. 312, sec. 15 ............. 158 amended by L. 1874, ch. 351, p. 464; L. 1880, ch. 80, p.192............ 156 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; superseding L. 1831, ch. 119, p. 164........... 310 See, also, L. 1849, ch. 383, p. 541, secs. 18-28; sec. 33 superseding T.-1853; Ch: 579,. P: 1065, SEC. 2 22 c2¢cc5 ceananenaie ie aemanoinareseewirs 307 See, also, L. 1867, ch. 410, p. 981.......... 0... cece eee cence sees 308 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; superseding L. 1831, ch. 119; see L. 1867, ch. MANO: ccatsapsie task caeaa ae bees eh y He seh ieee ee mate dg anced Hemawneaveaans 308 Laws 1873, “ch. 335, p. 484, art. 2, sec. 18; see L. 1882, ch. 410, sec. 81..... 281 superseding L. 1863, ch. 124, p. 125........ 2... e eee cece eee eee 310 repealing L. 1870, ch. 137, p. 366; LL. 1857, ch. 446, p. 846, sec. 7; see Tp W881, chs 537S6¢: 1, De AT ors x vaewesadudaueeenone kewerinc.ccsoalnis 309 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 488, sec. 28; see L. 1843, ch. 230, p. 314; L. 1882, ch. 410: SECS. SS0H=840 los. a3 3250 alec enisitd, eat ntdded enced 2658-4 28 Bowe aare aos Bee eee es 29 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; superseding L. 1851, ch. 386, p. 734........... 310 alsG Ti. 1867; €D334, “ps (50 wcayviet i aeten Sees ila belek vide tne dsaceng . 698 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; repealing L. 1843, ch. 230, p. 314, art. 1, secs. 1,2).3, 5 csuns eracveerwodmeneds rods dbs viewaubods dee caneesnwecan 307 L, 1851, ch. 386, p. 734, SeC. 40 2.0... ee cece eee eee ee een wanes 310 Laws 1873, ch. 335, sec. 75; L. 1869, ch, 898, p. 2264, secs, 1, 2; repealed by L. 1881, ch. 537, p. ee ae ae 308, 309 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CITED. xeiii PAGE, Laws 1878, ch. 335, p. 484, sec. 87; see L, 1882, ch. 410, sec, 822........... 287 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484, SeC, 112........ 0 0c cease eee ev eceeenreannoes 286 Laws 1873, ch. 335, p. 484; repealing Li, 1870, ch. 383, sec. 10............. 309 Laws 1873, ch. 335, art. 16, sec. 119; repealing L. 1868, ch. 853, p. 2007; Li 1870, Ch..187,: Ps 866 gcse newer aadaradeaes schcrcin dawson Se 309 sec. 112; see Li. 1882, ch. 412, secs. 212-214 0... cece eee eee aes 282. Laws 1873, ch. 348, p. 532; see L. 1882, ch. 410, sec. 824, subd. 6.......... 288 Laws 1873, ch. 348, p. 328; amending 2 R. S., 1230, sec, 2.............005 244 Laws 1873, ch. 395, sec. 3; amended by L. 1874, ch. 169, p. 188........... 246. -Laws 1873, ch. 395, sec. 2; amended by L. 1875, ch. 341, p. 382........... 246 Laws 1873, ch. 395, see. 6; as amended by L. 1881, ch. 644, p. 886........ 247 Laws 1873, ch. 395; repealing R. S., part 1, tit. 1, ch. 16, arts. 2and 3... 246 Laws 1873, ch. 397; amended by L. 1879, ch. 250, p. 827.................. 57 Laws 1873, ch. 525, p. 826; amending L. 1867, ch. 664, p. 1707............ 347 Laws 1873, ch. 613, p. 928, sec. 13; see L. 1882, ch. 410, secs. 815-816....... 283 sec. 7; amended by L. 1874, ch. 329, p. 432, sec, 7; see L. 1882, ch, 410, SCG: 900 nese yc 6ice2eoaddaeesnaee be Deen eeu Gea see Reuse yac 210, 215 see Li. 1881, ch. 361, amending L. 1880, ch. 540, sec. 8 ............... 210 Laws 1881, Ch.:853, Pi 407 wsssewennres ve eees gees eden os WAEEE NEA See oE Redes . 278 Laws 1881, ch. 361, p. 481 ...........0ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeees 12, 77, 81, 102, 204, 205 Laws 1881, ch. 361, p. 481; amending L. 1880, ch. 542, p. 763............. 202 Laws 1881, ch. 361, p. 481; repealing in part L. 1853, ch. 471............. 102 « BOCh View dak Sean e eA dae eee DLS uaa ede se seunaetene 105 Taw 1661, ch. 8612p. ABU ociseccenrinc coe tadcadivavG¥eoe ees eeus veunancnnenoins 211 SOC. Bavecseetsdge sede hn addvekweasacels yo fra oe 'eae 2 eves Oa clam tales 228 Laws 1881, ch. 402, p. 545; amending L. 1855, ch. 427, secs. 43, 44, 45, 50, Goksiae Gi Sead es yet ene Sh tA RE ace BARN a eat let ih eed i aa! 189, 193 “Laws 1881, ch. 427..........000ccc cece eee ea ee Rauainoneinle chores eaten ea eee 25 Tia ws: 1881:Ch 5 439 eo. Se ccna dis chee ee eees Meee eatin noes 25 Laws 1881, ch. 433, p. 591,sec. 1...... EELS ada WOR we ae aot tere kta ecaieem ane 10, 74 Laws 1881, ch. 439, p. 598; amending L. 1875, ch. 482, sec. 1, subd. 3,4.. 145 Laws 1881, ch. 464, p. 626; amending L, 1876, ch, 373, secs. 1,3 and 4; amended by L. 1882, ek. P89) pe Bd4a atustnawssdseteesh Ge eke veseeN 248 Laws 1881, ch, 468, p. 630, SCC. 18... 0... cece cette ee een eee 105 Dawes 1881,-CD, 477 6. ccc cineananne ane pede ee been eRe ede wna elaiaiaine . .. 83, 88 Laws TSS CH ASB ..660 2 ak, bet adieetasartakedoae teiew ce Yoo ee ees 251 Laws 1881, ch. 492, p. 667; amending L. 1864, ch. 555, i. 1211, Tit. VIL., BOC: 18 Sec svete s sees oreeaeiniieeeawoucs sae sess wdiceresae yeah ee 252 Jaws 1881, ch. 503, p. 677, BeO: 1; repealing L. 1816, ch. 160, p. 172, and L. 1830, ch. Dh WD idam sae 0 i oe ekereae atateeaniiwnaetiaee ea ae ee Anas ae Ser NaN uae 306 ‘Laws 1881, ch. 522, p. 700; see L. 1886, ch. 816, p. 507, sec. 3............. 75 Laws 1881, ch. 528......... der eeRigusbtigisiaigiste wane Culs eels aerk meNGyeuemodaaeade 254, 255 Laws 1881, ch. 528, which amended L. 1864, ch. 555, secs. 18, 19, 39, as amended by L. 1867, ch. 406, and L. 1875, ch. 567, was itself amended by L. 1883, ch. 994, ‘ps S45 -wasises wiaasaussaanaace gente Sidnndie nano 254, 255 Laws 1881, ch. 531, p. 709, sec. 1; amended by L. 1887, ch. 673, p. 855.... 352 356, 357, 358 Laws 1881, ch. 531, p. 709; repealing LL. 1880, ch. 435, p. 620, which amended L. 1879, ch. 526, p. 578; L. 1872, ch. 161, p. 467; L. 1887, ch. 673, 352 353, 354 Laws 1881, ch. 537, p. 745, sec. 1; repealing L. 1830, ch. 307, p. 365; L. 1835, ch. 67, p. 56; L. 1839, ch. 170, p. 143; L. 1839, ch. 209, p. 182..... 306 repealing L. 1840, ch. 326, p. 247; L. 1842, ch. 218, p. 266; L. 1843, ch. 230, p. 314; L. 1843, ch. 235, secs. i-4, p. 288; LL. 1857, ch. 446, p. 896, sec. 7; L. 1857, ch. 677, vol. 2, p. 497 ...... cc cee eee eee 307, 309 repealing L. 1859, ch. 302, p. 678; amended by L. 1867, ch. 410, Pi DEL cic La tezeseaen sun pun veacamecsudiaammmarnidud dete lvereavans 308 repealing L. 1868, ch. 853, p. 2007; L, 1869, ch. 898, p. 2264; L. 1870 Gh, 187, p. 866; Le, 1870, Gh, 983, p, B8tee soccer svsssexecsavcesiens * 309 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CITED. xix PAGE. Laws 1881, ch. 537; repealing L. 1831, ch. 119, p. 164; L. 1842, ch. 150, p. 184; L. 1843, ch. 216, p. 290; L. 1847, ch. 74, p. 82; L. 1848, ch. 128, p. 209, sec. 2; LL. 1863, ch. 124, p. 125; L. 1865, ch. 69, p. 94; L. 1867, ch. DOF 500 cmsannsnaclovoiniuues tae heeeke bases yedanuncnsy scsi 310 repealing L. 1873, Ch 3805 “Ds S4be os va Kawadiosnieccinidnmens Leames ad 308, 310 Laws 1881, ch. 554, p. 794; L. 1881, ch. 570, p. 811; amending L. 1875, ch. 482, p. 556....... sacha iia il att sas Cte Se RSNA Bah gee 145 Laws 1881, ch. 570; amending L. 1875, ch. 482.......... 00.0... ccceceeeeee 145 Baws 18815 iChy 59 lec vss vewewdambaeiens oedea sien chet abe eeotaceeee pe eeu eee 10 Laws 1881, ch. 640, p. 881; amending L. 1867, ch. 361, p. 817, sec. 1...168, 169 Laws 1881, ch. 644, p. 886; amending L. 1873, ch. 395, sec. 6............. 247 Laws 1881, ch. 675, p. 912, sec. 1; amended by L. 1882, ch. 319, p. 383; U31885,-Ch. 533, po 900) 2204's ssvareeeeaines saad ede neck saees seeesSeeey 270 SCCS ss Dy Bic A accwrasarecears an th wile ccthcudivnsy sienna gnv 8-4 4S 9 a Samad bated baagead weary aes Q71 Laws 1881, ch. 692, p. 857; see L. 1864, ch, 555, tit. 3, sec. 16 ............ 252 Laws 1881, ch. 700, p. 935.0... 00.0 ce ccc nce e ee ee ere ete eee eee ee ene 247 Laws 1882, ch. 60, p. 57; amending L. 1875, ch. 482, sec. 1, subd. 6; as amended by Ly, 1876, 6h. 257 coi. cseocosn eonees aeeoaa taaageceeee gees dr nas 145 Laws 1882, Ch, ISL, ssivesiags gets sae sa ts vic aad neeoseaeeeeeaey sian 14, 202, 211 amending L. 1880, ch. 542, p. 768..........6.0 cece e eee c eee eens saree 202 Laws 1882) Gl. 196.02... 26 ccs aan cccuatcmommaddmmeniaad oxancbexdvaaduws savers 149 Laws 1882, ch. 226, p. 279... 0... .cc cece cect e veg te een ena eencueenegenssnens 279 Laws 1882, ch. 250, p. 304; amending L. 1869, ch. 855, sec. 1; as amended ‘by Ti: 1874, Ch: 260% 22s sacs cccat sn tidin ote reniqaseawns sa eeeae ewe keke gate 145 Dawes 1882s. Chi O87 3 sine caste acwnigenneldd wacmananenrad edcareeeenee es . 383 Laws 1882, ch. 289, p. 354; amending L. 1876, ch. 373, secs. 1, 3, 4, which is amended by L. 1881, ch. 464, p. 626 .............cccceec cece eee eee ees 248 Thaw: 1882. ch. S15, S@¢. 13 scomuncdietsaner ees 645 O64 9 oe 8 ek hE EE ES 210 Laws 1882, ch. 319, p. 383; amending L. 1881; ch. 675, Ps 912 cs secevegesas 271 Laws 1882, ch, 344, SCC. 7... cece ccc cece ne renee eee te teen eenen snes 827 Laws 1882, Chi 363. ....5. cise ctor sawaronsneunsniineenereawea ene tae neers 139 Laws 1882, ch. 371, p. 525, sec. 1....... alec SAE EAMES BS hee eae ees 221 ” Laws 1882, ch. 383, p. 588, Sec. 18........ 0... eee cee cee cent ent ee ee 335 Laws 1882, ch. 402, sec. 1; repealing L. 1847, ch. 419..................2. 88 also repealing L. 1863, ch. 240 ........... 2... eee cece ence eee eee Sette 88 also repealing L. 1865, ch. 97 .......... 0.0. c cece cece teen eee 88 also repealing L. 1866, ch. 761; L. 1867, ch. 861.................... 88, 90 also repealing L. 1875, ch. 371, subd. 32, p. 574; repealing L. 1874, OW B84, 1): MOBY steed cctscuscisdvdearsgertawadasnenes aia hahaa eee ot 88, 90, 218 also repealing L. 1880, ch. 596.02... 2... eet ee 80, 87 also repealing L. 1881, ch. 477; L. 1880, ch. 140 ...............0.00005 88 Laws 1882, ch. 409, embodies L. 1880, ch. 596; repealed by L. 1882, ch. 402, SCC. Ds iicdck eek omee sche MeKae giheutsedcsseetsoatedey grevarsackicagel 87 Laws 1882, ch. 409, p. 581, S€C. 320.0... eee ee eee eee ne - 63 BOC) BLD ieiisise eapctamimnsneasmig wien e Faas eeaayeate Teentaal. 81 secs. 324, BOL, 928 -saupsnueduhtactaits ' hundred and twenty-nine of the Laws of eighteen hundred and seventy- . nine, entitled ‘An act in reference to the collection of taxes in the counties of Chautanqua and Cattaraugus, and the acts amendatory - thereof and supplementary thereto.’” The second section of the act provides “whenever a period of fifteen years has and shall have - elapsed after the execution of any deed or conveyance heretofore. made, or which may hereafter be made by the Comptroller of this State, or by a county judge and county treasurer, of lands of a non-: resident owner or owners, lying in the counties of Chautauqua or Cattaraugus, pursuant to the sale thereof for or on account of any tax 5 34° CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. or taxes returned as unpaid, and the former owner, as claimant of said ' lands, his heirs or assigns, shall not have entered into actual posses- sion of the same, or some part thereof, within that period, and made permanent and valuable improvements thereon, then every such deed or conveyance shall be conclusive evidence that the sale and all pro- ceedings prior thereto, from and including the assessment of the land, and all notices heretofore or hereafter required by law to be given previous to the expiration of the time allowed by law to redeem, were regular and were regularly given, published and served according to the provisions of all laws requiring or directing the same, or in any manner relating thereto.” i Held.—1. That the act embraced but one subject which was embraced in its title. : 2. That it did not deprive the owner of any vested rights (Cham- . berlain v. Taylor, 36 Hun, 24 [1885] ). Certain statutes relative to assessments held void as violating this provision (Tingue v. Village..of Port Chester, 101 N. Y., 294 [1886] ). Certain statutes relative to improvements and assessments held not. open to this objection (Matter of Knaust, 101 N. ¥., 188 [1886] 5 see also, People ex rel. McLean v. Flagg, 46 N. Y., 401 [1871]; petition of Nat. Ford to vacate assessment, 6 Lans., 92 [1872]; People ex rel. Hopkins v. Supervisors of Kings Co., 52 N. Y¥., 556 [1873]; People v. Williams, 3 Supm. Ct. [T. & C.], 338 [1874]; Hurlburt v. Banks, 1 Abb. N. C.,-157 [1876]; People ex rel. Comr. of Washington Park v. Banks, 67 N. Y., 569 [1876]; Guest v. City of Brooklyn, 8 Hun, 97 [1876]; People v. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Hun, 188 [1882]; Exempt Firemen’s Fund v. Roome, 29 Hun, 391 [1883]; 8. C. 93'N. Y., 313 [1883]; People v. Fire Assn. of Phil. at p. 327, 92 N. Y., 311 [1883]; People v. Float- — ing Dry Dock Co., 92 N. Y., 487 [1883]; People v. Supervisors of Ulster Co., 36 Hun, 491 [1885]; People v. Hagadorn, 36 Hun, 610 [1885] ). ‘In People v. Moring (3 Abb. Ct. of App. Dec., 539 [1867] ), reversing the opinion on this point expressed below by the Supreme Court, it was held that the act imposing a duty on brokers’ sales (2 Laws of 1866, Ch. 547, repealed by ‘L. 1868, Ch. 106), although it was -in contravention of the United States Constitution as attempting to regu- late foreign commerce, did not violate article 7, section 18, of the former Constitution, in not stating the object to which the tax was to be applied, since it was simply an amendment of an act which was valid. (The act added sales by brokers, to the provision for 1 , t ‘ CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. . 33 taxing sales by auctioneers under: L. 1846, Ch. 62). The court was also of opinion that the section, of the State Constitution referred to was not intended to be applied to laws which imposed a tax upon particular professions, classes of trade or individuals, but that it related only to a general tax upon the property of the State. The court cited with approval the intimation of Oarzey, C. J., in Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Mayor, etc., of New York (5 Sandf., 10, 14 [1851] ), which case was affirmed in the Court of Appeals (8 N. x, 241 .[1851]) that the section in question did not apply to the, imposition of a local tax for local purposes, but exclusively to a general tax for State purposes. An enactment that the taxes imposed “shall be applicable to the payment of the ordinary and current expenses of the State” is a sufficient designation of the object (People v. Home Ins. Co. 92.N. Y., 328 [1883]; People v. Nat. Fire Ins. Oo. of Hartford, 27 ‘Han, 188 [1882] ). Article TIL, section 20 of the Constitution was intended to pone, ; the annual recurring taxes known at the time of the adoption of the Gonstitution, and imposed generally on the entire property of the State, and does not apply to a special tax of the nature of that imposed tipon collateral inheritances by chapter 483,, Laws of 1885 (Matter of McPherson, 104 N. Y., 306 [1887] ). Art. IIL, § 21: “On the final passage, in either house of the Legislature, of any act which imposes, continues or revives a tax, or creates a debt or charge or makes, continues or revives any appropriation of public or trust money or property, or releases, discharges or commutes any claim or demand of the State, the ques- tion shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered upon the journals, and three-fifths of all the members elected to either house shall, in all such ‘ cases, be necessary to constitute a quorum therein.” Constitutional provision as to a three-fifths vote, held, not to apply toa law by which a commutation tax in lieu of military service was imposed. The presumption thatsuch an act was passed by a majority cannot be questioned-unless by formal issue. That three-fifths were present thay’be shown by other evidence than the certificate of the presiding officers. The requirement of the Constitution as to votes by yeas and nays is directory merely (People ex rel. Scott, v. Super- visors of Chenango, 8 N. Y., 317 [1853] ). The presumption is that an act passed by the Legislature received, the vote required by the Constitution, and that the requisite number 36 CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. of members were present, although the certificate of the Secretary of State be wanting in the publication of the laws. The objections must ‘be raised in the pleadings to be effective (Pumpelly v. Village of Owego, 45 How. Pr., 219 [Ct. of App. 1863] ; see, also, Darlington v. Mayor of N. ¥., 31. N. Y¥., 164, 185 [1865]; Hanlon v. Superv’rs. of Westchester, 8 Abb. Pr., [N. S.], 261 [1870]; S. C., 57 Barb., 383 [1870]. Art. V., § 8: “ All offices for the weighing, gauging, measuring, cull- ing, or inspecting any merchandise, produce, manufacture or com- modity whatever, are hereby abolished, and no such office shall hereafter be created by law; but nothing in this section contained shall abrogate any office created for the purpose of -protecting the public health, or the interests of the State in its property, revenue, ‘tolls, or purchases, or of supplying the people with correct standards of weights and measures, or shall prevent the creation of any office for such purposes hereafter.” In Opinions of Attorneys-General (1871), 534, it is Held that an act (L. 1859, Ch. 311, p. 698), subjecting gas meters to inspections, and taxing the manufacturer thereof, violates this section. Art. VIL, § 5: “There shall annually be imposed and levied a tax which shall be sufficient to pay the interest and extinguish the prins cipal of the canal debt mentioned in the third section of this article, as the same shall become due and payable, and the proceeds of such tax shall, in each fiscal year; be appropriated and set apart for the sinking fund constituted for the payment of the principal and the: interest of the aforesaid debt. But the Legislature may, in its discre- ‘tion, impose for the fiscal year, beginning on the Ist day of October, 1883, a State tax on each dollar of the valuation of the property in this State which may by law then be subject to taxation, sufficient, with the accumulations of the sinking fund applicable thereto, to pay in full both the principal and interest of the canal debt before mentioned, and the proceeds of such tax shall be appropriated and set apart for the sinking fund constituted for the payment of the principal and the interest of said debt: In the event of such action by the Legisla- ture, then the Legislature shall, under the law directing the assess- ment and levy of such tax, make such provision for the retirement of the canal debt as it shall deem equitable and just to the creditors of the State (Newell v. People, 7 N. Y., 9, 88 [1852]; Sherman v. Barnard, 19 Barb., 291 [1855] ). Art. VIL, §12: “Except the debt specified in the tenth and eleventh sections of this article, no debts shall be hereafter. contracted by or on . behalf of this State, unless such debtg shall be authorized by a law, for some single work or object, to be distinctly specified therein; and such law shall impose and provide for the collection of a direct annual tax to pay, and sufficient to pay the interest on such debt as it falls due, and also to pay and discharge the principal of such debt within eighteen years from the time of the contracting thereof. No such law shall take effect until it shall, at a general election, have been CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. 387. submitted to the people; and have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it, at such election. On the final passage of such bill in either house‘of the Legislature, the question shall be taken by ayes and noes, to be duly entered on the journals thereof, and shall be: ‘Shall this bill pass, and ought the same to receive the sanction of the people?’ The Legislature may at any time, after ‘the approval of such law by the people, if no debt shall have been contracted in pursuance thereof, repeal the same; and may at any time, by law, forbid the con- tracting of any further debt or liability under such law; but the tax imposed by such act, in proportion to the debt and liability which may have: been contracted, in pursuance of such law, shall remain in force and be irrepealable, and be annually collected, until the proceeds thereof shall have made the provision hereinbefore speci- fied to pay and discharge the interest and principal of. such debt and- liability. The money arising from any loan or stock creating such debt or liability shall be applied to the work or object specified in the act authorizing such debt or liability, or for the repayment of such debt or liability, and for no other purpose what- ever. No such law shall be submitted to be voted on within three months after its passage, or at any general election, when any other law or any bill, or any amendment to the Constitution shall be sub- mitted to be voted for or against.” (Newell v. People, 7 N. Y., 993 [1852]; Rodman v. Munson, 13. Barb., 188 [1852] ; ; Laws 1872, Ch. 734, “To provide means to pay the canal and general fund deficiencies” — held, void under art. 7, §.18 (People ex rel. Hopkins v. Supervisors of Kings, 52 N. Y., 556 [1873]; see, also, People ex rel. N. Y. and H. R. R. Co. v. Havemeyer, 3 Hit, ‘97 [1874] ). Art. VII, § 9. “It shall be the duty of the Legislature to pro- vide for the organization of cities and incorporated villages, and to restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to prevent abuses in "assessments, and in contracting debt by such municipal corporations.” (People ex rel. Griffin v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y.; 419 [1851]; Benson v. Mayor, etc, of Albany, 24 Barb., 248 [1857]; Grant v. Courter, 24 Barb., 232 [1857]; Clarke wv. City of Rochester, 24 Barb., 446 [1857]; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y., 88 [1858] ). Art. VILL, § 10. “Neither the credit nor the money of the State shall be given or loaned to or in aid of any association, corporation or private undertaking. This section shall not, however, prevent the Legislature from making such provision for the education and, sup- port of the blind, the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents, as to it may seem proper. Nor shall it apply to any fund or property now held, or which may hereafter be held by the State for educational purposes.” The constitutional amendment of 1874 (Art. VIIT., § 10) does not pro- 38 CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. hibit the disbursement by the local authorities, of moneys raised by local taxation, in aid of institutions designated by law. That section has reference to money raised by general taxation throughout the State, or revenues of the State, or moneys in the State treasury (Shepherd’s Fold of the Protestant Epis. Church v. Mayor, etc, of NL Y., 96 N. ¥., 187 [1884] ). Art. VIIL, § 11: “No county, city, town or village shall hereafter give any money or property or loan its money or credit to or.in aid of any individual, association or corporation, or become directly or indi- rectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of any association or corpora- tion; nor shall any such county, city, town or village be allowed to incur any indebtedness, except for county, city, town or village pur- poses. This section shall not prevent such county, city, town or vil- lage from making such provision for the aid or support of its poor as may be authorized by law. No county containmg a city of over 100,000 inhabitants, or any. such city, shall be allowed to become indebted for any purpose or in any manner to an amount which, including existing indebtedness, shall’ exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation of the real estate of such county or city subject to taxation, as it appeared by the assessment-rolls of said county or city | on the assessment for State or county taxes prior to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all indebtedness in excess of such limitation, except such as may now exist, shall be absolutely void, except as herein otherwise provided. No such county or such city whose present indebtedness exceeds ten per centum of the assessed valua- ‘tion of its real estate subject to taxation shall be allowed to become indebted-in any further amounts until such indebtedness shall be reduced within such limit. This section shall not be construed to pre- vent the issuing of certificates of indebtedness or revenue bonds issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes for amounts actually contained, or to be contained in the taxes for the year when such certificates or revenue bonds are issued and payable out of such taxes. Nor shall this section be construed to prevent the issue of bonds to provide for ‘the supply of water, but the term of the bonds issued to provide for the supply of water shall not exceed twenty years, and a sinking fund shall be created on the issuing of said bonds for their redemption, by raising annually a sum which will produce an amount equal tothe sum of the principal and interest of said bonds at their maturity. The amount hereafter to be raised by tax for county or city purposes, in a county containing a city of over one hundred thousand inhabitants or any such city of this State, in addition to providing for the principal and interest of existing debt, shall not in the aggregate exceed in any one year. two per centum of the assessed valuation of the real and personal estate of,said county or city; to be ascertained as prescribed in this section in respect to county or city debts.” (Bank of Rome v. Rome, 18 N. Y., 38 [1858]; People ex rel. Albany, etc, R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 35 N. Y., 551 [1866]; People ex’ rel. Dunkirk, W. & P. R. BR. Co. v. Batchellor, 53 N. ¥., 128 [1873]; POWER OF TAXATION. 39 Knapp v. Newtown, 1 Hun, 268 [1874]; Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y., 177 [1874]; Rogers v. Smith, 5 Hun, 475 [1875]; Matter of Buffalo & Jamestown R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 485 [1875]; Weisner v. Village of Douglas, 64 N. Y., 91 [1876]; People ex rel. Murphy v, Kelly, 76 N. Y., 475 [1879]; Hills v. Peekskill Savings Bank, 101 NY, 490 [1886] ). The “indebtedness ” referred to in this provision relates to indebt- ness to be met in the future by taxation (Bk. for Savings v. Grace, 102 N. ¥., 313 [1886] ). TL. ; THE POWER OF THE STATE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION OVER PERSONS, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS ‘WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IS PRACTICALLY UNLIMITED, EXCEPT BY THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE. The following are some of the cases in which either this principle has been stated in different forms, or the general powers of the State over the subject of taxation have been treated. An act of the Legislature imposing a tax upon local district of the State, for a public improvement (in this case a canal) is valid, notwith- - stancing a number of individuals of such district had previously . entered into a bond to the State; to themselves sustain the whole expense of the improvement. A city. or other locality may be taxed for a public work specially beneficial to it, although bencfits may be also derived by the community at large-therefrom (Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend., 65 [1840] ). . on There is nothing in the Constitution of New York which requires that taxation shall be general, so as to embrace all taxable persons in the State, or within any district or territorial district of © the State, or that it shall be equal, or that it shall be in proportion ' to the value of the property of the person taxed, or that it shall not. be: apportioned according to the benefit which each tax- payer is supposed to receive from the. object on which the tax is . expended (People ex rel. Griffin v. Mayer ete., of Brooklyn, 4 N. ¥., 419 [1851] ). The act establishing free schools throughout the State (L. 1849, Ch. 40 _ POWER OF TAXATION. 140, p. 192) provided (§ 10) “the électors shall determine by ballot at the annual election to be held in November next whether this act shall or shall not become:a law,” and ($14) in case a majority of all the votes in the State should be cast for it, “then this act shall become a law.” In an action against school trustees who levied a tax thereunder—held that the statute was unconstitutional, since the power of legislation was committed ‘by the people through the Con- stitution to’ the Legislature, which had no authority to make such submission, and the people could not bind each other by acting upon °° it (Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y., 483 [1853]; to the same effect had been Thorne v. Cramer, 15 Barb., 112 [1851] and Bradley v. Baxter, Id., 122 [1853] ). In Clark v. City of Rochester (13 How. Pr., 204, rev’d in 24 Barb, 446), Auzen, J. held that the Legislature had no power, under the Constitution of the State, to delegate to municipal corporations the power to subscribe for or to hold the stocks of railroad or other private corporations, or to issue bonds therefor. This view, as the same learned judge, sitting in the Court of Appeals, subsequently remarked, has not received the sanction of the courts (45 N. Y., 772, 781). ‘Ina Statute authorizing a tax to pay for a public service, the Legis-. lature has the right to specify the maximum amount, and to authorize the proper officer to pay when it should be judicially determined in mandamus proceedings (People ex rel. McSpedon v. Haws, 34 Barb., 69 [1861] ). There is no constitutional limitation upon the legislative power to. tax the persons and property of individuals within the State. The power may be exercised to pay debts contracted before the property- ~ holder comes within the jurisdiction (Pumpelly v. Village of Owego, e 45 How. Pr., 219, Ct: of App. [1863]). When the State, or a local division of it, acting under a law of . the State, seizes and sells land for non-payment of taxes, the pro- ceeding is administrative and not judicial (Matter of Trustees of New York Prot. Epis. School, 31 N. ¥., 574 [1864]). The whole. or any part may be sold, in fee or otherwise, in the discretion of the Legislature (Ib.). The Legislature of a State, unless restrained by the organic law, has a right to authorize a municipal corporation to take stock in a rail- road or other work of internal improvement, to borrow money to pay for it, and to levy a tax to repay the loan with or without a popular POWER OF TAXATION. Al vote (People ex rel. Albany and Susquehanna R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 35 N. Y., 551 [1866]). The power of taxation.and of apportionment is vested in the Legisla- ture, and includes the right of determining what portion of a public ' burden shall be borne by any individual or class of taderadats (People ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y., 187 [1869] ). It is within the power of the Legislature to impose a ve upon @ . locality for any purpose, and its power in this respect is not restricted - by the Constitution (Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y., 123 [1869]. °, The power of apportionment is included in the power to impose taxes, and is vested in the Legislature; and in the absence of any constitutional restriction, the exercise of it cannot be reviewed by the courts (Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y., 608 [1872] ). Where a tax is imposed upon a particular locality‘to aid in a public purpose (in this case a normal school), which the Legislature may reasonably regard as a benefit to that locality, as well as to the State at large, inequality in the apportionment of the expenses of the _ undertaking, with reference to the benefits resulting respectively to the State and to the locality, cannot be alleged for the purpose of _ impugning the validity of the act (Ib.). '_ In Weisner v. Village of Douglas (64 N. Y., 91 [1876], affirming 4 Hun, 201), Foran, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, referring to the expression in Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of Chenango (13 N. ¥., 148), decided in 1855, to the effect that, in the absence of exprees constitutional restriction, the power of taxation vested in the Legislature is unlimited, says “the Legislature is not sole, supreme and unrestrainable therein, and the courts are not debarred; but may, as @ co-ordinate branch of the government, scrutinize and measure the legislative act; always ‘keeping i in mind that the Legis- lature is the primary authority which is to inquire what i is & proper purpose for the application of money to be raised by taxation, and the necessity of taxation to subserve it, and it must be quite clear that it has erred before the courts can arrest the consequences of its action” (page 98). The court further approves the observation of Grover, J., in People ex rel. Dunkirk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Batchellor (53 N. Y., 128, 148), decided in 1873, to the effect that a town could not be compelled to . become a stockholder in a banking or manufacturing corporation, ‘although it appeared that the particular corporation would largely _ 6 42 POWER OF TAXATION. promote the public interest of the locality where it was established, and declares void bonds issued to raise money to pay for stock in a manufacturing corporation, and unconstitutional an act (chap. 577, ‘Laws of 1868) authorizing the village of Douglas to issue the bonds. and. to collect by taxation the money to pay them. The Legislature cannot provide for a local assessment without: notice to those affected, and the. right to a hearing and an oppor- bamaby to be heard. It “may prescribe the kind of notice and'the mode in which it shall be given, but it cannot dispense with all notice.” Except as restrained by the federal Constitution, the Legislature has ° unlimited power to impose taxes and assessments for public pur- poses. “But, in all cases, there must be- apportionment of the burdens, either among all the property owners of the State, or of the local division of the State, or the property owners specially benefited bythe improvement.” “A tax or assessment upon property arbitrarily ‘imposed, without reference to some system of just apportionment could not be upheld ” (Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y., 183 [1878] ). Unless restrained by provisions of the federal Constitution, the power of the State as to the mode, form and extent of taxation is unlimited where the subjects to which it applies are within her juris- diction (Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491 [1879] aff'g 42 Ct., 426). ‘The Legislature can constitutionally impose the same poll-tax on every citizen without reference to his ability to pay. It can impose a tax on all watches, pianos, carriages, dogs, spirituous liquors or other chattels without reference to their value. It can impose an arbitrary tax upon any avocation or business without estimating its volume or value (People v. Equitable Trust Co. of New London, 96 N. Y., 387 - [1884]). ‘The power of the Legislature to levy taxes for public purposes is limited only by the specific restrictions of the Constitution. In order to invalidate a statute imposing a tax, it is not enough to show that it is oppressive and unfair in its effect, provided it violates no express constitutional provision (People v. Supervisors of Ulster Co., 36 Hun, . 491 [1885] ). On the nature of the power of taxation, see 11 Alb. L. J :, 284, Concerning the limitations of the power of local taxation, see 12 Alb. L. J., 8, 41. ' REAL PROPERTY LIABLE. 43 “TY. REAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 2K. S., 981, § 1: “All lands and all personal estate within this State, whether owned by individuals’ or by corporations, shall be liable to taxation, subject to the exemptions hereinafter’ specified. z ' Bank of Utica v. City of Utica, 4 Paige, 401 [1834]; Williamson Us Field, 2 Sandf. Ch., 552 [1845]; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor of N. ¥., 8 Barb., 453 [1850]; N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v. Lyon, 16 Barb., 651 [1853]; ‘Trinity Church v. Mayor N. Y., 10 How.’ Pr., 188 [1854]; Ins. . Companies v. Coms. of Taxes, 17, How. Pr., 208; s. c. as Int. Life Ass. Soc. v. Comrs. of Taxes, 28 Barb., 319 [1858] ; People ex rel. Hoyt. v. Comrs. of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 225 [1861]; 21 How. Pr., 385; People ex | rel. Bank of. Commerce v. Comrs. of Taxes and Assessments, 40 Barb., 335 reversed on another point in*2 Wall, 400 [1863]; ‘Brit. Com. Ins. Co. v, Comrs. of Taxes, 28 How. Pr., 57 [1864]; 8. C., 1 Abb. Ct. App., 202 [1864]; 8. C., 18 Abb. Pr., 118 [1864]; People ex rel. Lincoln v. Ass’ors Town, Barton, 44 Barb., 153 [1865]; 8S. C., 29 How. Pr., 372; . Barhyte v. Shepherd & Voss, 35 N. Y., 239 [1866]; Excise Comrs. Del- aware Co. v. Sackrider, 35 .N. Y.,.154 [1866]; People ex rel. Lockport City Bank v. Board Ed. Lockport, 46 Barb., 591 [1866]; Foster. v. Van Wyck, 41 How. Pr., 496 [1867]; 8. C, 2 Abb. Ct. App., 171 [1867]; People ex rel. Jefferson v. Gardner, 51 Barb., 354 [1868]; People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v. Beardsley, 52 Barb., 106 [1868]; People v. Barker, 48 N. Y., 74 [1871]; Clark v. Norton, 58 Barb., 436 [1871]; Pacific 8. 8. Co. v. Comrs. Taxes, 46 How. Pr., 319, 343 [1873]; Barlow v. St. ‘Nicholas National Bank, 63 N. Y., 401 [ 1875]; People ex rel. Trow- bridge v. Comrs., 4 Hun, 596 [1875]; 8. C., 62 N. Y., 630; Petition N. Y. Catholic Protectory, 77 N. ¥., 342 [ 1879]; affg 8 Hun, 91; People ex rel. N. Y. EL. B. R. v. Comrs. Taxes, etc., 19 Hun, 460 [1879]; Matter Ulster Co. Savings Bank, 20 Hun, 481 [1880]. a. “The general laws of the State require all property, both real and ; personal, no matter by whom owned, except in certain cases of special . _&xemption, to be assessed for pu oses of taxation. This require- “ment embraces all property ownec by individuals as well as cor- porations, and includes all shares of stock held by individuals in “'eorporations, except in cases where the capital stock of such 44 - REAL PROPERTY LIABLE. corporations is itself liable to taxation as against the corporation.” Per Rucer, Ch: J. (McMahon v. Palmer, 102 N. Y., 176 [1886]; affirming 12 Daly, 362). , 2 R..S., 981, Part 1, Chap. XIIL, Tit.1; as amended by L. 1881, Ch. 293, p. 398. . “§ 2. The term ‘land,’ as used in this chapter, shall be construed to ‘include the land itself above and under water; all buildings and other. articles and structures, substructures and superstructures erected ’ upon, under or-above, or affixed to the same; all wharves and piers, including the value of the right to collect wharfage, cranage or dockage thereon; all bridges; all telegraph lines, wires, poles and appurtenances; all surface, underground or elevated railroads; all railroad structures, substructures and superstructures, tracks and the iron thereon; branches, switches and other fixtures permitted or authorized ‘to be made, laid or placed in, upon, above or under any public or private road, street or grounds; all mains, pipes and tanks laid or placed in, upon; above or under any public or private street or place; all trees and underwood. growing upon land; and all mines, minerals, quarries and fossils in and under the same, except mines belonging to the State. The term ‘real estate’ and ‘real property,’ - whenever they occur in this chapter, shall be construed as having the © same meaning as the term ‘land’ thus defined.” The statute means that such an interest in real estate, as will pro- tect the erection, or affixing thereon, and the possession of buildings - and fixtures, will bring those buildings and fixtures within the term “land,” and hold them to assessment as the lands of whomsoever has that interest in the real estate, and owns and possesses the buildings and fixtures (People ex rel. Dunkirk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cassity, 46 N. Y., 46 [1871] ). The track of a railroad, consisting of stringers, ties and rails, affixed to the land, is for the purpose of assessment real estate, and is taxable as such to the corporation, although the fee in the land upon which it - ig laid is in another owner (Ib.). The foundations, columns and superstructure of an elevated rail- way are taxable as real estate (People ex rel. N. Y. Elevated R. BR. Co. ‘v. Commissioners of Taxes, 82 N. Y., 459 [1880]; affirming 19 Hun, 460). . The mains of a gas company, under the streets, are not taxable as real estate (People ex rel. Citizens’ Gas-light Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 39 N. Y., 81 [1868] ). While a mere franchise is not taxable except by special statute, a pier built, under a franchise to construct it and charge wharfage, may _ be taxed as real estate, notwithstanding the site belongs to the city REAL PROPERTY LIABLE. 45 taxing it, and the public ‘have a right to use it as a street (Smith v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 68 N. ¥., 552 [1877]). This last case questions the following decision, viz: That the interest of the grantee from a city, of a right to build and. maintain a wharf on the city. property, to be used as a public street or wharf, and to charge wharfage, is not a mere covenant, but real property, an incorporeal hereditament, though not subject to taxation (Boreel v. Mayor, ete., of N. Y., 2 Sandf., 552 [1849] ).: A grant from the city reserved a portion of the land for ,a public ‘street, the grantee covenanting to build a wharf, always to he used as a public wharf, he to have the wharfage —held that his interest was taxable as land (People ex rel. Smith v. DOMnies Onste of Taxes, 10 Hun, 207 [1877] ). The interest of a lessee for 990 years at a nominal rent— “held tax- able as real estate; though such an estate would go to the exeauta or administrator for distribution as personalty under the statute (Trustees of Elmira v. Dunn, 22 Barb., 402 [1856] ). One person may be taxed as owner of the fee of the land; and ' another for the trees, buildings and other structures thereon, and the ‘minerals and quarries therein (Smith v. Mayor, etc., of N. per 68 Na ¥., 552 [1877] ). It makes no difference in respect to taxation, whether the rail is laid upon the surface of the ground or placed upon pillars or carried’ through a covered way or tunnel. In either case, the structures | adopted to sustain it, or facilitate and protect its use, are, within the meaning .of the law, land, and taxable as such (People ex rel. New York & Earlem R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 101 N. Y., 322 [1886]; reversing 23 Hun, 687). The franchise of a railroad corporation, though annexed in a general sense to the road, does not have the character.of realty, and is not real estate under the tax laws (People ex rel. Panama R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 104 N. Y., 240 [1887]; see, also, Williamson v Field, 2 Sandf. Ch. 552 [1845]; Sheldon v. Van Buskirk, 2 N. Y., 478 [1849]; Goulet v Asseler, 22 N. Y., 234 [1860]: ‘Phelps v. Bostwick, 92 N. Y., 243 [1860]; People ex rel. Dunkirk and Fredonia R. R. Co. v. ‘Cassity, 2 Lans., 298 [1870]; Gillilan v. Spratt, 41 How. Pr., 33 [1871]; People ex rel. Otto v. Board of Assessors, 27 Hun, 559 [1882]; People ex rel. The Mills Water Works Co. v. Forrest, 97 N. Y., 97 [1884] ). 4G REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. Vas REAL ESTATE EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. GeveraL Rutes Concernine Exemprions. A presumption that the Legislature intended to surrender its right of taxation in the future by a present exemption therefrom, cannot be entertained unless such intention is clearly expressed (People ex rel. Cunningham v. Roper, 35 N. Y., 629 [1866] ). An exemption from taxation must be described in clear and unam- biguous language, and appear to be indisputably within the inten- tion of the Legislature (People ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. . Davenport, 91 N. Y., 574 [1883] ). An.intent to exempt any property is not to be presumed (People ex rel. Twenty-third Street R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 95 N. Y., 554 [1884] ). Assessors have no authority to enter upon the assessment-roll the name of any person whose property is by law exempt from taxation, nor to impose an assessment thereon, and they are liable in damages if they do so (Prosser v. Secor, 5 Barb., 607 [1849] ). The office of assessor in determining what property is subject to, and what is exempt from, taxation, is judicial, and the assessor is not liable in damages for errors committed in arriving at his conclusion. So held in a case where a minister of the gospel was not allowed exemp- tion to the amount of $1,500 (Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y., 238 [1866]), Personal property of residents within their town or ward is within the jurisdiction of the assessors,who act judicially in determining what is exempt, and an assessment on such property, though clearly erro- neous in overruling a claim of exemption, is not void, nor does it lay the foundation for an action at law against the assessors’ personally (Foster v. Van Wyck, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 167; 41 How. Pr. 493 [1867]). ConstitutionaL aND Staturory Exemprions. 2B. S., 982, Pt. I., Ch. XTIL., Tit. T: § 4. The following property ‘shall be exempt from taxation: 1. All property, real or personal, exempted from taxation by the Constitution of this State, or under ‘the Constitution of the United States. “9. All lands belonging to this State or the United States.” REAL ESTATE EXEMPT AT (See L. 1878, Ch. 191, p. 237, for amendment of this subdivision, adding — to the exemption all vessels enrolled and licensed under and pursuant to the laws of the United States and engaged in the coasting trade, but such amendment was repealed by L. 1879, Ch. 140, p. 181; see People ex rel. Bank v. Bd. Supervisors, 67 N. Y., 109, on rule as to effect of repeal in such case on original statute.) Property of the United States is exempt from taxation by authority of a State, though it be land lying within that State, and jurisdiction over it has not been ceded (Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S., 151. [1886] ). _ The general rule of law is that property owned by a State or by the United States, or by a municipality for public use, is not subject to taxation except by express legislation (People ex rel. Mayor, ete, of N. Y. v. Hanasnons: of Brooklyn, 19 Abb. N. C., 158 Sp. Tes ‘[1887] ). ' Land owned by the city of New York, situated in Brooklyn, — held, not taxable by the municipality of its situs (Ib.). ; Lands, part of a system of water-works, purchased i in pursuance of statutes (L. 1872, Ch. 887; L. 1875, Ch, 563), by a city, —held, not to be taxable in a town where they lay (City of Rochester v. Town of Rush, 80 N. Y., 302 [1880]; reversing 15 Hun, 239). _For some cases which refer to taxation of lands owned by a munici- : pality, — (see 14 Alb. L. J., 388). The property of a water-works company is not exempt from taxa- tion on the ground that its system is a means or agency of village government (People ex rel. The Mills Water-works Company v. Forrest, 97 N. Y., 97 [1884] ). The cession of the State of Kansas to the United States of exclusive jurisdiction of certain lands, saving to such State the right of taxation ' therein, leaves the right of the State to subject property therein to taxation the same as before (Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Low, 114 U. 8., 525 [1884] ). Laws of 1886 (Ch. 435, p. 677), provides that ‘assessments on State lands are to be notified to the Comptroller of the State; lands are not to be sold thereunder, and such sales are void. ' Exemption of the mint or branch mint of the United States in the ‘sity of New York (L. 1852, Ch. 46, p. 40). ' Exemption of the assay office of the United States in the city of New. ‘York (L. 1853, Ch. 406, p. any 48 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. . Exemptions of the United States post-office in the city of New York (L. 1860, Ch. 506, p. 1005; L. 1861, Ch. 118, p. 212; L. 1879, Ch. 33, p. 82, § 5; L. 1882, Ch. 410). . a Exemption of light-house sites, forts, naval hospitals, government buildings, etc., in the State of New York (Laws 1833, Ch. 96, p. 115, : light-house; L. 1833, Ch. 181, § 2, p. 227, naval hospital, etc.; L. 1839, Ch. 29, p. 25, light-house; L. 1839, Ch. 232, § 3, p. 213, military post; L. -1840, Ch. 155, § 3, p. 113, fort; LL. 1846, Ch. 25, § 6, p. 22, fortifications; L. 1847, Ch. 153, § 7, p. 150, fort; L. 1847, Ch. 153, § 7, lands acquired by United States; L. 1847, Ch. 196, p. 189, light- house; L. 1850, Ch. 222, p. 402, § 3, canal piers and light-house; L. 1861, Ch. 223, p. 540, pier; L. 1861, Ch. 313, § 18, p. 735; L. 1874, ch. 432, p. 551, light-houses, magazines, batteries, etc.; L. 1862, Ch. 253, forts, dock-yards, etc.; L. 1865, Ch. 523, p. 932, eustom-house; L. 1866, Ch. 862, p. 1994, lands for revenue service; L. 1867, Ch. 760, p. 1725, custom-house and post-office; L. 1868, Ch. 257, p. 528, David’s island; L. 1870, Ch. 357, p. 819, lands for offices; L. 1872, Ch. 111, p. 257, pier; L. 1872, Ch. 533, p. 1224, § 5, public building; L. 1873, Ch. 195, p. 314, government buildings; L. 1874; Ch. 49, p. 74, light-house; L. 1875, Ch. 502, p. 583, light-house; L. 1876, Ch. 147, p. 111, § 12, ‘lands for improvement of Harlem river, etc.; L..1880, Ch. 15, p. 94, § 4, light-house depot; L. 1880, Ch. 69, p. 175, light-house ; L. 1883, Ch. 385, p. 564, post-office; L. 1884, Ch. 11, p. 19, light- house; L. 1884, Ch. 75, p. 74; cemetery; L. 1885, Ch. 96, p. 204, - § 4, government buildings; L. 1886, Ch. 46,.p. 57, old Produce Exchange building, New York. 28. S., 982; Pi. I, Ch. 13., Tit. L, § 4, sub. 38, L. 1883, ch. 397). “3, Every building erected for the use of a college, incor- porated academy or other seminary of learning, and in actual use for either of such purposes, every building for public worship, every school-house, court-house and jail used for either of: such purposes, and the several lots whereon such buildings so used are situated, and the furniture belonging to each of them.” — ‘(See Laws 1864, Ch. 555, Tit. 9, § 18, Subd. 5, p- 1276; People ex rel. St. John’s College v. Commissioners of Taxes, 10 Hun, 246 [1877].) Premises in the city of New York, occupied by the lessee as a board- ing and day-school for young ladies — held liable to taxation, and not, exempt therefrom under the statute (Chegaray v. Jenkins, 38 Sandf. Super. Ct., 409, [1850], affirmed on another ground in 5 N. Y., 376 [1851] ).. REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. 49 ~ It was doubted, whether under 1 R. 8. 288, § 4, subd. 3, ‘buildings erectéd for the use of “seminaries of learning” other than such as are used by corporations created for educational purposes; and whether “gchodl-houses,” other than those used for public schools, are exempt from taxation. . Rucerzs, Ch. J., intimated that the exemption embraced all such buildings, and Foors, J. was of the contrary opinion (Ib.). See, also, Hebrew, Free.School Assoc. v: Mayor, etc., of N. ¥., 99 N. Y., 488 [1885]. A: building erected for the use of and occupied as a private ‘poarding-school is not exempt from taxation by the statute, the dictum of Rucezzs, Ch. J. to the contrary in 5 N. Y., 376 overruled (Chegaray v. Mayor, etc., of N. ¥., 13 N. ¥..220 [1855], remaratviy 8. C., 2 Duer, 529). The .school-houses referred to in this statute are those for the ‘public common schools. Buildings erected and used for private, unin- corporated seminaries of learning are not exempt from taxation (Ib.). “Premises used as a parochial school, the title to which was in the name of the pastor of the parish —held to be exempt (Church of St. Monica v, Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 13 N. Y. State Rep’r, 308 [1887] ). Incorporation not necessary to secure exemption of school-house (Ib.). Vacant lots appropriated as a situation for house of pubis worship —not exempt (Trinity Church - v. Mayor of N. Y., 10 How., Pr. 138 [1854] Sp. T.). Under 1 BR. S., 5 ed., 906, § 5, subd. 3, the word “lots” is not in its meaning to be restricted to a single city lot. It is intended to embrace the whole of the land on which the exempted buildings stand so far as it is directly devoted to the promotion of the objects of the institution occupying them, either by’ supporting its buildings, sup- plying its daily wants or affording means of recreation (People ex rel. ‘Academy of the Sacred Heart v. Commissioners of Taxes, 6 Hun., 109, Ist Dept., [1875]; affirmed in 64 N. Y., 656 [1876]). “Where the title passed in June after the initiatory proceedings to assess were taken, but before confirmation of the tax in September,— ‘held, that a sale therefor should be set aside, since the tax did not become a lien until it was confirmed (Washington Heights Methodist Episcopal Church v. Mayor, etc., of N. ae 20 Hun., 297, Ist Dept. 1880 [1880]). 7 50 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. The relator having commenced to build in December before the tax was assessed,— held, that the property was exempt from that time. _ Any estate in possession with the right to the use and enjoyment of the lands, would entitle the relator to the exemption, if a church were erected (Ib.). . A building leased to the board of education of a city for use as a school-house,— held, taxable to the owner. - The word “school-house” in the statute had sale reference to those buildings with the site which the district would have been bound to _ pay a tax upon as owner but for the exemption (People ex rel. Rorke v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 32 Hun, 457, 2d Dept., [1884] ; affirmed in 97 N. Y., 648, [1885] ). . A tax against real estate owned and ordinarily. used by the plaintiff, an incorporated seminary of learning, but leased from July 1 to September 1 for other purposes,— held, illegal, because the tax was imposed after the lease had expired, ‘and a lease during * the usual vacation period did not waive or forfeit the exemption (Temple Grove Seminary v. Cramer, 98 N. Y., 121 [1885]; affirming 26 Hun, 309). Under Laws of 1852 (Ch. 282), if real estate taxed is not exclusively ‘the property of a society claiming exemption, but the latter is a lessee, while the fee isin an individual liable to taxation, it is not exempt, and it is immaterial whether the society is a religious society or not (Hebrew Free School Ass. v. Mayor, 99 N. Y¥., 488 [1885]; Hebrew Benev. Soe. v. Mayor, 11 Hun, 116 (1877] ). Where a religious corporation has acquired title to land, and com- menced building a church in June, and the assessment on the prop- erty was not confirmed until August twenty-ninth,—held, that its statutory exemption protected it from the tax (Wardens of St. James ‘Church v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 41 Hun, 309, ist Dept., [1886] ). The farm on which a college building was situated being used for the maintenance and support of the college, and wholly devoted to its purposes,— held, to be within the exemption accorded to premises occupied by seminaries of learning (People ex rel. Seminary of our Lady, etc., v. Barber, 42 Hun, 27 [1886] ). The objects for which the plaintiff was incorporated were the improvement of the spiritual, mental and social condition of young men by the support and maintenance of lectures, sermons, libraries, reading-rooms, social meetings and such, other meetings and services as might conduce thereto. It erected and used a building for public REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. 51 worship, social and religious meetings, and for imparting religious and secular instruction, including a library, lecture-room, gymnasium, etc. Held that. the building was exempt from taxation. Where the ‘erection of a building exempt from taxation, when o¢cupied, had been commenced before the assessment was laid, held that the assess- ment was invalid (Young Men’s Christian: Assoc. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 44 Hun, 102, [1887] ). _ A school-house to be exempt must be a public common school. Where an orphan asylum holds religious services to which the public are not invited, it is not a building for public worship so as to be exempt, but it is an alms-house, and as such exempt (L. 1888, Ch. 232; ‘L, 1852, Ch. 282; L. 1882, Ch. 410; L. 1866, Ch. 136). The decision below (88 Hun, 593) erroneously allowed. the exemption as that of a school-house and place of worship (Association of Colored Orphans v. Mayor, 104 N. Y., 581 [1887] ). Exemption from taxation does not necessarily embrace exemption from assessment for a local improvement (Buffalo City Cemetery . v. City of Buffalo, 46 N. ¥., 506 [1871]; Matter of St. Joseph’s Asylum, 69 N. ¥., 858 [1877]; Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. 84 id, 108 [18811). : . . For various applications of the rules touching exemptions — see 13 Alb. L. J., 222, 345. For'exemptions in the city of New York see chapter XXV. Exemption of Marine Hospital grounds on Staten Island (L. 1865, Ch. 689, p. 1398). — Laws of 1866 (Ch. 171, p. 345) exempts estates, real and personal, of the Father Matthew Total Abstinencé Benefit Society of South Brooklyn, so long as the same shall be. devoted to the promotion of ' religious instruction and improvement. “s, = 2B. 8., 982; Pt. 1, Ch. XTIL, Tit. 1, Sec. 4; L. 1866, Ch. 186, p. 250: “4, Every poor-house, alms-house, house of industry, and every house belonging to a company incorporated for the reformation of offenders, or to improve the moral condition of seamen, and the real ‘and personal property used for such purposes belonging to or con- . t 1 - nected with the same.” (See Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, 84 N. ¥., 108 [1881]; affirming’ 18 Hun, 582.) = The Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan ‘Asylum in the city of New », York, first incorporated as a charitable society (L. 1832, Ch. 14), but _, Since empowered to maintain and educate children committed to its 52 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. charge by their parents or the public authorities (L. 1860, Ch. 316),— held, exempt as a house of industry (Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asylum v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 11 Hun, 116 [1877]). A charitablé corporation organized under special acts to take charge of foundlings and other infants and provide for their support, and » moral, physical, intellectual and industrial education, and providing lying-in wards, etc.,—held, exempt from taxation as an alms-house (New York Infant Asylum v. Supervisors of Westchester, 31 Hun, 116, 2d Dept., [1883]). . Where a benevolent society leased its land, exempted from taxation , by law, with covenants of renewal, the lessees to erect buildings which the lessors were to take at an appraised valuation, at the expiration of any term if they elected then to resume possession, rental, a per cent- age on the appraised valuation of the land alone, lessees to pay ordi- nary taxes,— held, that the exemption of the land did not extend to such buildings, which were properly assessed to the lessees (People ex rel. Muller v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 93 N. Y., 308 [1883]; affirming 15 N. Y. Week. Dig., 249; and see 27 Hun, 559). The relator incorporated by Laws of 1851 (Ch. 170), for the “purpose of affording pecuniary and other relief, to such persons, natives of Switzerland or of Swiss origin, as may be in the United States, and in need of assistance,” purchased real estate and held the same exclusively “to give a temporary home, asylum and relief to the sick, necessitous and others who may be proper objects of its. bounty in accordance with its charter.” Upon this state of facts, and where the relator derived no income from said premises, and con- stantly relieved persons who would otherwise be likely to be a charge upon the city and county of New York,— held, that under 2 Revised _ Statutes, 982 (§ 4, subd. 4), the property should be exempt from taxa- , tion as an alms-house (People ex rel. Swiss Benev. Soc. v. Commission- ers of Taxes, 36 Hun, 311, [1885] ). 2R. §., 982, Pt. I, Ch. XII, Tit. 1, § 4: “5 The real and personal property of every public library.” * * * * * * * “8, ‘The personal property of every minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination, or every such minister or priest who is perma- nently disabled by impaired health from performing the active duties of the ministry, and every such minister or priest, who has reached the age of seventy-five years; and thé real estate of such minister or priest, or such disabled or aged minister or priest, when occupied by him, provided such real and personal estate do not exceed the value _of $1,500.” , REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. «58 (See Matter of Mayor N. Y., 11 Johns., 80 '[1814]; Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb., 22 [1854].) . Weaver v. Devendorf (3 Den., 117 [1846] ), was an action against assessors brought by a minister of the gospel, whose taxable property was valued at $1,800, ‘and who claimed that he had not been allowed the statutory exemption, and that the assessors had assessed his property at a higher rate than that of other inhabitants of the town. It appeared that the plaintiff's property exceeded in value the statu- tory limit. The court held that the function of assessors in determin- ing the value of property was judicial, where such value was not sworn to as authorized by law, and its erroneous exercise did not ren- der them liable in damages. To enable a minister of the gospel to maintain an action against assessors, for assessing his, property, and thereby subjecting him to the payment of taxes, he must show, that he is such minister, and that the value of both his real and personal property does not exceed $1,500 (Prossér'v. Secor, 5 Barb., 607 [1849] ). Assessors held not liable in damages for assessing a minister of the gospel having less than $1,500 worth of property, on the ground that they -had jurisdiction, such minister being a resident, and that the act was a judicial one (Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb., 22 [1854] ). “84. 9. ‘All property exempted by law from execution.” - The provisions of law, exempting certain real property from exe- éution, and therefore from taxation, are the following, taken from the Code of Civil Procedure : “81389. The enumeration, in this article, of the property which is exempt from levy and ‘sale by virtue of an execution, does not repeal | any special provision of law, relating to such an exemption, which, by its terms, is applicable only to a particular class of persons or cor- porations, or to a particular locality, or otherwise to a special case.’ (The “special provision of law” referred to may be L. 1847, Ch. 133, §10, p. 129; L. 1851, Ch. 122, § 19, p- 239; L. 1866, Ch. 273, § 6, p. 613; L. 1867, ‘Oh. 516; p. 1399; and other similar statutes). * * * * * x * * Kk * “§ 1395. Land set apart as a family or private burying-ground, and heretofore designated, as prescribed by law, in order to exempt the same, or hereafter designated for that purpose, as prescribed in the next section, is exempt from sale, by virtue of an execution, upon the following conditions only: “1. °A portion of it must have been actually used for that purpose. 54 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. «2, It must not exceed in extent one-fourth of an acre. ’ “3, It must not contain, at the time of its designation, or at any ‘time afterwards, any building or structure, except one or more vaults, or other places of deposit for the dead, or mortuary monuments.” Sand used as a cemetery, not established by a cemetery association under the general law, is not exempt, nor does the erection upon it of a burial chapel confer the privilege (Trinity Church v. Mayor of N. Y., 10 How. Pr., 138 [1854], Sp. T.). “§ 1397. A lot of land, with one or more buildings thereon, not exceeding in value $1,000, owned and occupied as a residence, by a householder having a family, and heretofore designated as an exempt homestead, as prescribed by law, or hereafter designated for that purpose, as prescribed: in the next section, is exempt from sale, by virtue of an execution, issued upon a judgment, recovered for a debt ¢ontracted after the 30th: of April, 1850; unless the judgment was recovered wholly for a debt or debts contracted before the designa- tion of the property or for the purchase-money thereof. But no property heretofore or hereafter designated as an exempt homestead, as prescribed by. law, or by the next section,'shall be exempt from taxation, or from sale for non-payment of taxes or assessments.” (For original of this section see L. 1850, Ch. 260, repealed by L. 1877, Ch. 417, § 1; Cook v. Newman, 8 How. Pr., 523 [1853]; Schouton v. Kilmer, 8 How. Pr., 527 [1853]; Robinson v. Wiley, 15 N. Y., 489 [1857]; Allen v. Cook, 26 Barb., 374 [1858]; Kneettle v. Newcomb, 22 N. Y., 249 [1860]; Smith v. Brackett, 36 Barb., 571 [1862]; Lathrop v. Singer, 39 Barb., 396 [1863]; Rice v. Davis, 7 Lans., 393 [1872].) *§ 1399. A lot of land, with one or more buildings thereon, owned by a married woman, and occupied by her as a residence, may be | designated as her exempt homestead, as prescribed i in the last section; and the property so designated is exempt from sale, by virtue of an execution, under the same circumstances, and subject to the same . exceptions, as the homestead of a householder, having a family.” “§ 1400. The exemption, prescribed in the last three sections, con- tinues after the death of the person in whose favor the property was exempted, as follows: “1, If the decedent was a woman, it continues, for the benefit of her . surviving children, until the majority of the youngest surviving child. «9, If the decedent was a man, it continues, for the benefit of his widow and surviving children, until’ the majority of the yeunigenti gurviving child, and until death of the widow. REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. 5D “But the exemption ceases earlier, if the property ceases to be occupied as a residence, by a person for whose benefit: it may so continue, except as otherwise prescribed, in the next section.” “§ 1401. The right to exemption, of a-person entitled thereto, as pre- scribed in the last four sections, is not affected by a suspension of the occupation of the exempt property, as a residence, for a period not exceeding one year, which occurs in consequence of injury to, or destruction of, the dwelling-house upon the premises.” 8 1402. The exemption of a homestead, otherwise valid under the: provisions of this article, is not void, because the value of the property, designated. as exempt, exceeds one thousand dollars. In that case, | the lien of a judgment’ attaches to the surplus, as if the property’ had not been designated as an exempt homestead; but the property cannot be sold by virtue of an execution, issued upon a judgment, as against which itis exempt. After the return of such an execution, the owner of the judgment may maintain a judgment creditor's action, to procure a judgment directing the sale of the property, and enforc- | ing his lien upon the surplus.” 2B.5S., 982, Pt. L, Ch. XIII, Tit. L: “§ 5. If the real and personal estate, or either of them, of any minister or priest, exceed the value of one thousand five hundred dollars, that sum shall be deducted from the valuation of his property, and the residue shall be liable to taxation.” (Clark v. Norton, 58 Barb., 486 [1871]; affirmed in 59 N. Y., 243; People ex rel. Westbrook v. Ogdensburg, 48 N. Y., 390 [1872] ). “§ 6. Lands sold by the State, though not granted or conveyed, shall be assessed in the same manner as if actually conveyed.” ' ' The act of February 18, 1817, exempting the buildings, machinery and manufactured articles in the hands of the manufacturers of cotton, woolen or linen fabrics, held, repealed by Laws of 1823, chapter 262, page 390 (Columbian Manuf. Co. v. Vanderpoel, 4 Cow., 556[1825] ). The act (L. 1840, Ch. 254) authorizing the taxation and sale of Indian. lands, without any reservation of the rights of Indian occupants, is. | unconstitutional and void. No tax can be imposed or assessed upon any of the Indian reservations belonging to the Seneca nation of | Indians (L. 1857, Ch. 45, p. 72, § 4). This was so, independently of ; the statute, by virtue of the treaty with the United States (7 U. 8. Stat., at L., p. 45). The statute (L. 1841, Ch. 166) authorizing the sale of Indian lands for taxes, but providing that such sale should not. ° 56 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. affect the Indian right of occupancy, is valid as against the objection that it conflicts with the treaties of the United States guaranteeing. the Indians free use and enjoyment of their lands, since it operates only against the pre-emption rights of white purchasers (Fellows v. Denniston, 23 N. Y., 420 [1861]; People ex rel. Erie R’y Co. y. Beards- ley, 52 Barb., 105; affirmed 41 N. Y., 619). Laws 1855, Ch. 546, page 1043: An act in relation to plank-roads and turnpike roads. § 5. Section 4 of chapter 87 of the session laws of 1854 is hereby amended so as to read as follows: “Toll-houses and other fixtures, and all property belonging to any plank or turnpike road company, shall be exempt from assessment and taxation for any purpose whatsoever, until the surplus annual receipts of tolls on their respective roads, over necessary repairs and a suitable reserve fund for repairs and relaying of plank, shall exceed seven per.cent. per annum on the first cost of such road. In case of any disagreement between the assessors of any town, village or city, and any such company, concerning such exemption clawned, said com- pany may appeal to the county judge of the county in which such assessment is proposed to be made, who shall, after due notice to the appealing party of such appeal, examine the books and vouchers of such company and take such further proof as he shall deem proper, and shall decide whether such company is liable. to taxation under this section, and his decision shall be final.” Laws 1856, Ch. 183, page 304: “ An act to exempt lands held by agricultural societies from taxation. “Sec. 1. All lands now held, or which may hereafter be held, by any agricultural society in this State, and permanently used for show grounds by any such society, shall be exempt from taxation during the time so used.” Laws 1866 Ch. 273, p. 610: “ An act authorizing the incorporation of. associations to erect monuments to perpetuate the memory of soldiers who fell in defense of the Union. * * * 5 * * * * * * * * “§ 6, The property of any association formed pursuant to this act shall be exempt from levy and sale on execution, and from all public taxes, rates and assessments, and no street, road, avenue or thorough- ‘fare shall be laid through the lands of such association held for the purposes aforesaid, without the consent of the, trustees of such association, ' eevee by special permission of the Legislature of the State. REAL ESTATE EXEMPT. 57 “§ 7. A tax may be imposed, levied and collected on the taxable property in any town in which such monument or monuments may be erected for the purpose of repairing or improving the same and the grounds thereof; such tax shall be imposed in the manner prescribed by law for imposing general taxes in such town as are now authorized to be imposed.” Laws of 1879, chapter 250, page 327: ' “An act to amend chapter 397 of the Laws of 1878, entitled ‘An act for the incorporation of fire, hose and hook and ladder companies.’ ” ~ §gorton 1. Chapter 397 of the Laws of 1873, is hereby amended by adding thereto a section, to be numbered section 11, which section shall read as follows: “§ 11. The members of any fire company organized under the pro- visions of this act, and situated within any incorporated village, may be exempted from taxation to the amount of $500 on any village assess- ment for village purposes, and from highway poll-tax in addition to the exemptions enumerated by law, and the real and personal property of any such company may be. exempted from like village taxation, provided that at any general election or at any special election called for that purpose, a majority of the legal voters of such village shall vote in favor thereof, and at any such election the vote shall be by ballot, and the ballots shall be indorsed ‘for’ or ‘against exemption from taxation of the members of the fire company’ and a similar ballot indorsed ‘for’ or ‘against the exemption of the real and per- sonal property of the fire company.’ Such election shall be held in the same manner and by the same officers as at a general election in said village.” -- L, 1879, Ch. 310, p. 397: “An act to prevent the gale of lands used for cemetery purposes. “Szc. 1. No land actually used and occupied for cemetery purposes shall be sold under execution or for any tax assessment; nor shall such land tax assessment be levied, collected, or imposed; nor shall it be lawful to mortgage such land, ‘or to apply it in payment of debts, so long as it shall continue to be used for such cemetery purposes. “82. Whenever any such land shall cease to be used for cemetery purposes, any. judgment, tax or assessment which, but for the pro- visions of this act, would have been levied, collected, or imposed, shall thereupon forthwith, together with interest thereon, become 8 58 PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. and be a lien-and charge upon such land, and collectible out of: the same. “§ 3. The provisions of this act shall not apply to any lands held by the city of Rochester.” The following are specific exemptions of cemeteries: L. 1834, Ch, 299, p. 561, § 5, Buffalo burial-ground; L. 1838, Ch. 298, p. 297, § 5, Greenwood; L. 1839, Ch. 153, p. 126, § 4, Long Island; L. 1839, Ch. 156, p,.181, § 7, Greenwood; L. 1839, Ch. 261, p. 1247, Grange, N. Y. city; L. 1842, Ch. 128, p. 107, Pittsford; L. 1848, Ch. 15, § 5, p. 12, Westfield; L. 1846, Ch. 103, p. 114, Fort Hill; L. 1879, Ch. 440, p. 493, Maimonides Benovelent Society of N. Y. city, cemetery in New Lots. Laws 1886, Ch. 391, p. 611: Warner’s Observatory of Rochester exempted. VI. PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 2R8.8., 981; Pt. I, Ch. XII, Tit. L: “Sec, I. All lands and all personal estate within this State, whether owied by individuals or by corporations, shall be liable to taxation, - subject to the exemption hereafter specified.” 2R.S., 982; Pt.1, Ch. XII, Tit L: | , “§ 3. The term ‘personal estate,’ and ‘personal property,’ whenever they occur in this chapter, shall be construed to include all house- hold furniture, moneys, goods, chattels, debts due from solvent debtors, whether on account, contract, note, bond or mortgage; | public stocks, and stocks in moneyed corporations. ‘They shall also be construed to include such portion of the capital of incorporated com- panies, liable to taxation on their capital, as shall not be invested in ‘real estate.” , (See Lord v. Arnold, 18 Barb., 104 [1854]; People ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Comm’rs of Taxes, 40 Barb., 335 [1863]; People ex rel. Lincoln v. Town of Barton, 44 Barb., 158 [1865]; S. C., 29 How.: Pr., 872 [1865]; People ex: rel. Buffalo R. BR. v. Fredericks, 48 Barb., 176 [1866]; Foster v. Van Wyck, 2 Abb. Ct. Ap., 171 [1867]; People ex rel. Stephens v. Halsey, 53 Barb., 552 [1867]; People ex rel. Citizens’ Gas-light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 39 N. Y., 87 [1868]; Marsh v. Chamberlain, 2 Lans., 288 [1870]; People ex rel. Dunkirk R. R. Co. v. Cassity, 2 Lans., 299 [1870]; People ex rel. Ithaca Savings Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883].)- - The usual clause in an act of incorporation; declaring the stock. of , “ih ae “3 7 we RSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. 59 -. the company personal estate, does not change the character of the property which is held by the company in its corporate capacity (Mohawk and Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 384 [1834]). The assessment and collection by ‘a city, of a tax on. its own bonds in the hands of a taxpayer, in the same manner as.on other like property, is proper (People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. v.' Comm’rs of Taxes, 76 N. Y., 64 [1879] ). The court distinguishes Murray v. City of Charleston (6 Otto, 432), which held that a city ordinance which imposed a tax of two per cent on its own bonds bearing six per cent. interest and required it to be reserved from the interest due to a-foreign bondholder, eee the obligation of a contract and was void. he Corporate franchises are regarded in tax laws as personal property (People ex rel. Panama R. R. Co. v. Comm’rs of Pee 104 N. ty 240 [1887] ). Taxation or Dests Due Non-Reswenvs. L. 1851, Ch. 371, p. 721: * An-act to schiee certain debts owing to non-residents to taxation. “§ 1. All debts owing by inhabitants of this State to persons not residing within the United States for the purchase of any real estate, shall be deemed personal property within the town or county where the debtor resides, and as such shall be liable to taxation in the same manner and to the same extent as the personal estate of citizens of this State.” . Money due on a contract for the sale of lands is personalty, and where such a contract, belonging to a non-resident, is in the posses- sion and control of an agent resident of the village, . it may, for municipal purposes, be assessed to the agent and taxed, notwithstand- ing the provisions of Laws of 1851, chapter 371, that debts due to "non-residents for the purchase of real estate shall be assessed to the ereditor and taxed in the town where the debtor resides, since this. provision does not apply to villages (People ex rel. Westbrook v. Vil- lage of Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y., 390 [1872] ). “§ 2. If there shall reside in any county of this State an agent of any non-resident creditor having debts owing to him of the description mentioned in the first section of this act, he shall, on or. before the twenty-fifth day of July in such year, furnish to the county treasurer: of each county where such debtor resides, the true and accurate . amount of debts of the description mentioned in the first section of this act, which were owing on the first day of January preceding, to _ the principal of such agent, in each town in such county, which shall be verified by the oath of such agent taken before roy pee author~ ized to administer oaths.” : 60 | PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. The statement furnished by an agent for non-residents of debts due them is not conclusive upon the assessors(People ex rel. Stephens v. Halsey, 87 N. Y., 344 [1867]; affirming, 53 Barb., 547). «4§ 3. Any such agent who shall refuse or neglect, without good and sufficient cause, to furnish such list, shall forfeit the sum of $500 to the use of each county in which such debtor resides, to be sued for by the treasurer of such county in his name of office, and to be recovered upon proof that the principal of such agent had debts owing to him by inhabitants of such county, of the description men- tioned in the first section of this act, and that the existence of such debts was known to such agent. “84. The county treasurer, on receiving such statement, shall immediately make out and transmit to the assessors of the several towns of his county in which any such debtor resides, an abstract or copy of so much of such statement as relates to the town of such assessor, with the name of such creditor. “§ 5. The assessors, on receiving such abstract or statement from the county treasurer, shall, within the time in which they are now required by law to complete their assessment-roll, enter thereon the name of such non-resident debtor, and the aggregate amount due him in such town, on the first day of January preceding, in the same manner as other personal property is entered on said roll.” The plaintiffs had contracted to purchase of a foreign company its interests in lands situate in different counties, in one of which plaintifis resided. The interests consisted of lands, bonds and mort- gages, and contracts for conveyance by the company, which was to retain the title to all the property, the subject of the contract with the plaintiffs, and to collect and credit to their account the proceeds of the sales and the mortgages, until the consideration of such con- tract should be paid. The plaintiffs agreed to pay all the taxes assessed against the company. Under Laws 1833, Ch. 250, p. 355, which enacts that “all debts owing by the. inhabitants of this State to persons not residing therein, for the purchase of ‘any real estate, or secured by a mortgage on real estate, shall be deemed personal property within the town and county where the debtor resides, and as such shall be liable to taxation in the same manner and to the game extent as the personal estate of citizens of this State ”— held, 1. That the tax upon the bonds and mortgages and contracts was properly assessed in the towns where the mortgagors and purchasers resided. 2. That the town of the plaintiffs’ residence having assessed | them for the whole debt incurred by them in the purchase, should be restrained from collecting more than such part of it as was incurred for the actual purchase of land. 3, That the purchase of bonds and mortgages, and contracts for lands sold, and the obligation or Ry oy PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. 61 debt incurred thereby, did not create a debt for “the purchase of real estate” within the meaning of the statute, but’a debt arising out of the purchase of choses in action (Redfield v. Supervisors of Genesee, Clarke’s Chan., 42 [1839]; said to be affirmed in 3 Chan. Sent. 92). ; The county treasurer cannot question the amount fixed by the assessors as due upon debts owing to non-residents, when called upon to issue his warrant for collection of the tax (People ex rel. Stephens v. Halsey, 37 N. Y., 344 [1867]; ‘affirming 53 Barb., 547; 36 How. Pr., 487). ; For a discussion of the doctrines relied on in taxing debts due non-residents, see 7 Alb. L. J., 241. Taxation oF Business CaprraL or Non-REsIDENTs. L. 1855, Ch. 37, p. 44: “An act amendatory of the acts for the assessment and collection of taxes. : , ; “Szc. 1. All persons and associations doing business in the State of New York, as merchants, bankers or otherwise, either as principals or partners, whether special or otherwise, and not residents of this State, shall be assessed and taxed on all sums invested in any manner in said business, the same as if they were residents of this State; and said taxes shall be collected from the property of the firms, persons or associations to which they severally belong.” (People ex rel. Hoyt v. Comrs. Taxes, 23 N. Y., 231 [1861] ; Board Excise Comrs. Onondaga Co. v. Backus, 29 How. P., 41 [1864] ; British Com. Life In. Co. v. Comrs. Taxes, 1 Abb. Ct. Ap. Dec., 199 [1864] ; Hitt v. Crosby, 26 How. P., 417 [1864] ; Salter v. Ham, 31 N. Y., 322 [1865] ; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Comrs. Taxes, 35 N. Y., 439 [1866] ;. Williams v. Supervisors of Wayne Co, 78 N. ¥., 562 [1879] ). ' : L. 1855, Ch. 37, p. 44— held not to be in violation of the provisions of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing equal privileges and immuni- ties to the citizens of each State in the several States; nor of those forbidding the imposition of duties' on imported goods, by a State (Duer v. Small, 4 Blatchf., 269; 17 How. Pr., 201 [1859] ). This statute was intended’ to reach the capital of non-résidents. employed within this State in continuous trade, and not property sent here only to market for sale. So where a foreign corporation engaged‘ in manufacturing in another State transmitted to its agent. ‘here its manufactured product for sale, the proceeds being remitted . at once, with the securities received for sales on credit, to the home . 62 PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. office of the corporation — held that it was not doing business in this State within the meaning of the statute (People ex rel. The Parker Milis v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 242 [1861] ). Securities, other than United States stock, deposited by a foreign insurance company with the comptroller, as security for policy-holders under L, 1853, Ch. 468, to enable it to do business in the State, are liable to taxation (International Life Assurance Soc. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 28 Barb., 318 [1858] ). A foreign corporation id liable to be taxed upon bonds of a muni- cipality within this State, deposited with the State Comptroller under statutory requirements. Such bonds are personal property, and are to be regarded as invested in the business carried on, within the terms of the statute. The place of assessment for BUBB DEES of taxation of a foreign corporation doing business in this State, i is where the prin- cipal business of the corporation is carried on, not at- the residence of the Comptroller of the State, even as to the securities deposited with him (British Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 31 N. Y., 32 [1865]; 28 How. Pr. 41). That bonds and mortgages deposited by a foreign insurance com- ‘pany with the superintendent of insurance, may be reached by taxation see (Smyth v. International Life Assurance Co., 35 How. Pr., 126 [1868]; S. C., 4 Abb. Pr., N. S., [1868] ). The fact that a foreign insurance corporation has ceased to issue new policies within the State, and confines its business to receiving yearly premiums and paying losses on outstanding policies only, does not exempt it from taxation (Smyth v. International Life Assurance Co., 35 How. Pr., 126 [1868] ). - Where at the time of making the assessment-roll, the agent of a non- resident has moneys of his principal in bank, it is liable to taxation, though before the time for correcting the roll it has been withdrawn and used (People ex rel. Westbrook v. Village of Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y., 390 [1872] ). Where a foreign banking company had an agency permanently established in the city of New York, to which it transmitted funds to be employed in temporary loans, subject atall times to its control and. drafts — held that it was not liable to taxation here for the funds so employed, and the exemption from taxation of foreign capital sent to — agents here for investment, etc., under Laws of 1851 (Ch. 176, § 2), was _ not removed by the act of 1855 (Ch. 37), which subjects non-residents doing business in this State to taxation on the moneys employed in PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. 63 ‘such business (People ex rel. Bank of Montreal v. Commissioners of Taxes, 59 N. Y., 40-[1874]; reversing, 1 Thomp. & C., 630). Under Laws of 1855 (Ch. 87), a foreign corporation doing business in this State, and having a principal office here, is taxable for moneys invested in such business, as the personal estate of a domestic corpor- ation is taxed, in the town or ward of such office, and the assessment at such place must be exclusive, and embrace all its personal property liable to taxation within this State. Assessment of personal property of a foreign corporation in the possession of an agent in a town, other than that of such office, by the assessors of that town,— held void (People éx rel. Bay State, etc., Co., v. McLean, 80 N. Y., 254 [1880]; affirming, 17 Hun, 204; 5 Abb., N. C., 187). Moneys in the hands of a resident partner, belonging to a firm whose principal place of business was in a foreign country, but which transacted business here — held, subject to taxation, though the business here consisted of purchasing products for sale abroad, ‘and the moneys were here only for that purpose (Matter of McMahon, 66 How. Pr., 190 [1883] ).. ; Taxation or Inprvipvan Bankers. L. 1882, Ch. 409, p. 581: ‘An act to revise tis statutes of this State relating to banks, banking ‘and trust companies. * s * * * * * * »__ *§ 320. Every individual banker doing bifsiness under ‘the laws of this State is hereby required to declare upon oath before the assessor the amount of capital invested in such banking business, and each one hundred dollars of such capital for the purpose of this act, and - for the purpose of taxation, shall be held and regarded as one indi- vidual share in such banking business, and such shares are hereby declared to be personal property. If such banker have partners, he ‘shall declare upon oath before the assessor the number of shares ‘held by each of them in such banking business, ascertained as above provided; and the shares so held by any partner shall be included in the valuation of his taxable property in the assessment of all taxes levied in the town, school district or ward where such individual banker is located, and not elsewhere; and.such individual banker shall pay the ‘same and make. the amount so paidacharge in his accounts with such partners; and if such individual banker have no partners, he shall be held to be sole owner of all the shares in such business of banking, and the same shall be included in the valua- tion of his personal property in the assessment of all taxes levied in the town, school district or ward where the bank is located, and not elsewhere.” ' A banker doing business under the general banking law may be assessed by the name he has adopted in his business —e. g., The Pratt 64 PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. _ Bank—and the warrant for the collection of the tax issued against. such name may be levied upon the property of the banker used in his business. ‘The question whether such banker was taxable in the town or ward in which the assessment was made, cannot be raised to affect the validity of process regular on its face, against the officer executing it (Patchin v. Ritter, 27 Barb., 34 [1858] ). The residénce of an individual banker, doing business under the general banking law, is for the purposes of taxation of his banking capital, in the town or ward specified as the location of his banking office in the certificate required by the statute (L. 1844, Ch. 281, § 3). When the certificate is not in evidence, the actual location of his ._ banking office will be presumed to have been mentioned therein ~ (Miner v. Village of Fredonia, 27 N. Y., 155 [1863]; Metcalf v. Mes- senger, 46 Barb., 325 [1864] ). A banker assessed for $3,000 on his banking-house, $25,000 on his: capital stock, and $28,000 for personal property, including surplus earnings, from which last item the value of his banking-house was deducted, testified before the assessors that he had no personal prop- erty liable to taxation, except the capital of his bank amounting to $25,000; that $10,000 of that amount was in United States bonds, and that his banking-house formed a part of his capital stock. Held that it was thereupon the duty of the assessors to amend their roll by striking out $10,000 for the amount of the United States bonds; that ;- the amount of valuation on the banking-house should be struck out of that on the capital, since it was already assessed on the roll as real estate, and that the whole assessment for personal property should be struck out, since there was nothing in the evidence to justify the “assessors in retaining that item against the taxpayer's oath (People ex rel. Raplee v. Reddy, 43 Barb., 539 [1865] ). In the case of Bellinger v. Gray (51 N. Y., 610 [1873] ), Reynoxps, Commissioner, in an opinion separate from, but concurring in its con- clusions with the opinion of the rest of the court, held that an assess- ment against a banker for “circulation, notes and profits” was illegal, and made the assessment-roll void on its face, since it appeared to tax ‘the banker for notes issued by himself, and for which he was debtor. TaxaTIon oF THE Owners or Dzprs anp Bonne. Laws of 1883, Ch. 392, p. 568: “$1. All debts and obligations for the payment of money due or owing to persons residing within this State, however secured or wherever such securities shall be held, shall be deemed for the pur- PERSONAL PROPERTY LIABLE TO TAXATION. 65 poses of taxation, personal estate within the State, and shall be assessed as such to the owner or owners thereof in the town, village or ward in which such owner or owners shall reside at the time such ‘ assessment shall be made (but nothing herein contained shall in any' manner authorize the assessment of the same property in more than one place in this State in any one year), nor shall-any personal prop- erty'or estate exempt from taxation under the Laws of the United '. States be liable to assessment under the provisions of this att. “§ 2. When a person shall have acquired a residence in any town, village or ward in this State, and shall have been taxed therein, such residence shall be presumed to continue for the purposes of taxation until he shall have acquired another residence in said State or shall have removed therefrom.” , The rule of exemption of personal estate situate in another State, ' though owned by a resident of this State, applies only to property’ capable of having an actual situs away from the owner, or his domicile. Choses in action or securities in the hands of an agent out of the. State for collection or investment, are so situated as to be regarded as having foreign and not a domestic situs (People ex rel. Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 224 [1861}). Property of a resident in the form of loans in other States, the secu- : rities for which are in the hands of agents there, is not taxable in. this State (People ex rel. Jefferson v. Gardner, ‘51 Barb., 352 [1868]). A resident of this State is not liable to be assessed and taxed here for capital invested in loans on real estate in other States, upon secu- rities taken and held in those States by his agents. Jt seems that such ‘property can be made liable to taxation here by legislation. (People ex rel. Jefferson v. Smith, 88 N. Y., 576 [1882]). : The federal Constitution does not prohibit a State from taxing,: in the hands of one of its resident citizens, a debt held by him against a resident of another State, and evidenced by the bond of the debtor, secured by deed of trust or mortgage upon real estate situated in the , State in which the debtor resides. A debt has its situs, for purposes of taxation, at the creditor’s residence (Kirtland.v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S., 491 [1879] ). A resident member of a partnership in California having died in. November, his executors were assessed in January upon personal property consisting of the interest of his estate in the partnership, before the amount of that interest had been ascertained, or any accounting had or assets received by the executors. Held, that the assessment should be set aside, since, at the time it was made, no 9 f 66 PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. debt within the meaning of the statute was due from the surviving partners to the executors (People ex rel. Strauss v. Coleman, 44 Hun, 20 1887). As the act of 1883, Ch. 392, p. 568, does not in terms refer to agents, “executors or trustees, a trustee should not be taxed as the owner of phe ‘PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION IN THE funds, the whole beneficial interest in which isin aresident of another State (People ex rel. Darrow v. Tax Comm'rs of New York, 33 Daly 933 [1888] ). - Qn the taxation of mortgages, see 10 Alb. L. J., 353, 383, 415. VIL. STATE OF NEW YORK. (Norn. Subdivisions 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 of section 4 (2 R. S. 982) were also inserted under the head of real estate exempt from taxation. They are repeated here because they relate also to personal property). 2B. S. 982, Pt. I, Ch. XIII, Tit. L. § 4. The following property shall be exempt from taxation: “1, All property, real or personal, exempted from taxation by the Constitution of the State or under the Constitution of the United States. “3. Every building erected for the use of a college, incorporated . academy, or other seminary of learning and in actual use for either of such purposes, every building for public worship, every school-house, court-house and jail used for either of such purposes, and the several lots whereon such buildings so used are situated, and the furniture belonging to each of them” [as amended by L. 1883, Ch. 397, p. 571). (Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N. Y., 376 [1851]; S. C., 3 Sandf., 413 [1850]; Chegaray v. Mayor, 2 Duer, 529 [1853]; Chegaray v. Mayor, 13 N. Y., 229 [1855]; People ex rel. Sac. Heart v. Comrs. Taxation, 6 Hun, 109° (1875]; Harlem Church v. Mayor, 5 Hun, 442 [1875]; People ex rel. St. John’s Coll. v. Comr. Taxes, 10 Hun, 246 [1877]; Methodist Episcopal Church v. The Mayor, 20 Hun, 298 [1880].) “4, Every poor-house, alms-house, house of industry, and every ‘house belonging to a company incorporated for the reformation of offenders, or to improve the moral condition of seamen, and the real and personal property used for such purposes belonging to oe connected with the same.’ “5, The real and personal property of every public ‘ibrar (Petition of N. Y. Cath. Protectory, 8 Hun, 91 [1876], 77 N. ¥,, 342 [1879].) PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 67 A corporation, having for one of its objects the permanent estab- lishment in the city of New York of an institution in which shall be collected and classified geographical and scientific works, instruments, documents, etc., explanatory of geography, geology, etc:, having especial reference to that kind of information which should be at all times accessible for public uses in a great maritime and commercial city —held entitled to exemption under this subdivision, as a publie ” library (People ex rel. American Geographical Soe. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 11 Hun, 505 [1877]). «6, All stocks owned by the State, or by literary or charitable institutions,” (Hebrew Free School v. Mayor, 4 Hun, 446 [1875].) In eonnection with this Sec. 4, Sub. 6, the following sections of L. of 1882, Ch. 409, p. 851, should be considered. “ § 325. Any moneyed or stock corporation deriving profit or income from its capital or otherwise shall add to the dividend which shall be- declared upon any stock downed by the State or'by any literary or charitable society or institution a sum equal to the assessment for taxes-paid upon an equal amount of the stock of such corporation not exempt from taxation.” “§ 326. The provisions of the sixth subdivision of the fourth section of the first title of chapter thirteen of the first part of the Revised Statutes, whereby all stocks owned by the State or by literary or charitable institutions, in moneyed or stock corporations, are exempted from taxation, are hereby declared to be for the benefit of the Stata or the institutions owning such stocks, and not for the benefit of ‘the said corporations” (L. 1845, Ch. 195, p. 224 relating to this subject was repealed by L. iba Ch. 402, § 1). Personal property exemptions under 2 R. S., 982, Pt. L, Ch. XIIL, Tu. [, Sec. 4, continued : “7. The personal estate of every incorporated company not made liable to taxation on its capital in the fourth title of this chapter.” (Utica Cotton Co. v. Oneida, 1 Barb. Ch., 432 [1846]; People ex rel, Ithaca Savings Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883].) New York Elevated Railroad Company is not exempt from taxation upon its capital. stock and personal property under the provisions of L. 1867, Ch. 489 and L. 1868, Ch. 855, §§ 2,3, 4 (People ex rel. N. Y. Ele- vated R. R. Co. wv. Commissioners of Taxes, 82 N. Y.,459 [1880]; affirm- ing 19 Hun, 460). “8. The personal property of every minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination, or every such minister or priest who is perma- nenily disabled by impaired health from performing the active duties ‘ \ .68'. PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. of the ministry, and every such minister or priest who has reached: the age of seventy-five years; and the real estate. of such minister or priest, or such disabled or aged minister or priest, when occupied by ‘him, provided such real and personal estate do not exceed the value | of $1,500” (as amended by L. 1884, Ch. 537, p. 654). , A minister of the “Reformed Church in America,” in good stand- ing, withdrawn from active duty as such by reason of old age and infirmity, but engaged in no secular occupation,— held, entitled to the $1,500 exemption (People ex rel. Mann v. Peterson, 31 Hun, 420 [1884]). , “9. All property exempted by law from execution.” ; The provisions of law, exempting certain personal property from execution, are the following taken from the Code of Civil Procedure: “§ 1390. The following personal property when owned by a householder,” (Woodward v. Murray, 18 Johns., 400 [1820]; Bowne v. Witt, 19 Wend., 475 [1838]; Griffin v. Sutherland, 14 Barb., 456 [1852]; Hutchinson v. Chamberlain, 11 N. Y., Leg. Obs. 248 [1853]; Van Vechten v. Hall, 14 How. Pr., 486 [1857]; Brigham v. Bush, 32 Barb., 596 [1861]; Matter of Winans, 5 Den., 138 [1887].) “Tg exempt from levy and sale by virtue of an execution; and each movable article thereof continues to be s0 exempt, while the family or any of them, are removing from one residence to another: “1, All spinning wheels, weaving looms, and stoves, put up, or kept for use in a dwelling-house; and one sewing machine with its appurtenances. “2. The family Bible, family pictures and school-books, used by or: in the family; and other books not exceeding in value fifty dollars, kept and used as part of the family library.” ' (Robinson’s Case, 3 Abb., Pr. 466 [1856].) ; _ *3, A seat or pew occupied by the judgment debtor, or the family, in a place of public worship. “4, Ten sheep, with their fleeces, and the yarn or cloth manufac- tured therefrom; one cow; two swine; the necessary food for those animals; all necessary meat, fish, flour and vegetables actually pro- vided for family use; and necessary fuel, oil and candles, for the use of the family for sixty days.” _ (Hall v. Penney, 11 Wend., 44 [1833]; Brackett v. Watkins, 21 Wend., 68 [1839]; Carpenter v. Herrington, 25 Wend., 370 [1841]; Farrell v. Higley, 1 Hill & D. Supp., 87 [1843]; Shaw v. Davis, 55 Barb., 389 [1870]; Hasbrouck v. Bouton, 41 How., 208 [1871]; 8. C., 60 Barb., 413 [1871].) PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. . 69 “5, All wearing apparel, beds, bedsteads and bedding necessary for the judgment, debtor and the family; all necessary cooking uten- sils; one table;. six chairs; six knives; six. forks; six spoons; six plates; six tea-cups; six saucers; one sugar-dish; one milk-pot; one -'tea-pot; one crane and its appendages; one pair of andirons; one -goal scuttle; one shovel; one pair of tongs; one lamp, and one candle- stick.” (Bowne v. Witt, 19 Wend., 475 [1838].) «6. The tools and implements of a mechanic, necessary to the’ car- rying on of his trade, not exceeding twenty-five dollars.” . (Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. Pr., 18 [1851]; ; Reinecke v. Flecke, 35 N. ¥. Supr., 491 [1873] ; see further, generally, Mickles v. Tousley, 1 Cow., 114 (1823]; Brackett ‘vsWatkins, 21 Wend., 68 [1839]; Matthewson v. Wal- ler, 3 Denio, 52 [1846]; Cole v. Stevens, 9 Barb.» 676 [1851]; Kneettle v. Newcomb, 22 N. Y., 249 [1860]; 31 Barb., 169 [1857]; Cox v. Stafford, 14 How. Pr., 519 [1857]; Hasbrouck v. Lounsbury, 26N. ¥., 598 [1863]; Becker v. Becker, 47 Barb., 497 [1866]; Finnin v. Malloy, 33 N. Y. Supr., 382 [1871]; Brooks v. Hathaway, 8 Hun, 290 [1876].) _*§ 1391. In addition to the exemptions allowed by the last senkion; nabediry household furniture, working tools and team.” ~ (Morse v. Keyes, 6 How. Pr. ., 20 [1851]; Quackenbush v. Danks, 1 Den., 128 [1845]; Robinson’s Case, 3 Abb.,:466 [1856]; Rue v. Alter, 5 , Den., 119 [1847]; Bitting v. Vandenburgh, 17 How. Pr., 80 [1859]; Wheeler v. Cropsey, 5 How. Pr., 288 [1850]; Ford v. Johnson, 34 Barb., 364 [1861]; Hutchinson v. Chamberlain, 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 248 [1853]; Eastman v. Caswell, 8 How. Pr., 75 [1853]; Harthouse v. Rikers, 1 Duer, 606 [1853]; 8. C., 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 223 [1852]; Hoyt. v. Van Alstyne, 15 Barb., 568 [1853]; Seaman v. Luce, 23 Barb., 240 [1856]; Radcliff v. Wood, 25 Barb., 52 [1857]; Lockwood v. Younglove, 27 Barb., 505 [1858]; Van Buren v. Loper, 29 Barb., 388 [1859]; Dains v. Prosser, 32 Barb., 290 [1860]; Wilcox v. Hawley, 31 N. Y., 648 [1864]; Stewart v. Brown, 37 N. Y., 350[1867]; Smith 0. Slade, 57 Barb., 637 [1870]; Finnin v. Malloy, 33 N. Y. Supr., 382 [1871]; Cogsdill ». Brown, 5 Hun, 341 [1875]; Turner v. Borthwick, 20 Hun, 119 [1880]; Matter of Winans, 5 Den., 138 [1887] ; Metaweney v. Childs, 41 Hun, 607 [1886].) “Professional instruments, furniture and library, not exceeding in value two hundred and fifty dollars, together with the necessary food for the team for ninety days, are exempt from levy and sale ’ by virtue of an execution, when owned by a person, being’ a house- holder,” : er Oe ‘ q SS 70 PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. ‘(Bowne v. Witt, 19 Wend., 475 [1838]; Bowman v. Quackenboss, 8 Code R., 17 [1850]; Griffin v. Sutherland, 14 Barb., 456 [1852]: Hutchinson v. Chamberlain, 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 248 [1853]; Brigham v. Bush, 33 Barb., 596 [1861]; Rienecke v. Flecke, 35 N. Y. Supr., 491 _ [1873].) “Or having a family for which he provides, except where the execution is issued’ upon a judgment, recovered wholly upon one , or more demands, either for work performed in the family as a _ domestic, or for the purchase-money of one or more articles, except as prescribed in this or the last section.” , (Barnes v. Anderson, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 346 [1846]; Mathewson v. Waller, 3 Denid, 52 [1846]; Davis v. Peabody, 10 Barb., 91 [1850]; Cole v. Stevens, 9 Barb., 676 [1851]; S. C., 6 How. Pr., 424 [1851]; Hoyt v. Van’ Alstyne, 15 Barb., 568 [1853]; Hutchinson v. ‘Chamberlain, JIN. ¥. Leg. Obs., 248 [1853]; Cox v. Stafford, 14 How. Pr., 579 [1857]; Van Buren 'v. Loper, 29 Barb., 388 [1859]; Hickox v. Fay, 36 Barb., 9 [1861]; Craft v. Curtis, 25 How., 163 [1863]; Snyder v. Davis, 1 Hun, 350 [1874]; S. 0,3 T, & C., 596 {1874].) 5 (Earl v. Camp, 16 Wend., 562 [1837]; Mathewson v. Waller, 3 Den., 52 [1846]; Danks v. Quackenboss, 3 Denio, 594 [1847]; Vedder v. Alkenbrack, 6 Barb., 327 [1848]; Cole v. Stevens, 9 Barb., 676 [1851]; Smith v. Hill, 22 Barb., 656 [1856]; Cox v. Stafford, 14 How. Pr., 519 [1857]; Kneettle v. Newcomb, 22 N. Y., 251 [1860]; 31 Barb., 169 [1857]; Hickox v. Fay, 36 Barb., 9 [1861]; Fields v. Moul, 15 Abb. Pr., 6 [1862].) “ § 1392. Where the judgment debtor is a woman, she is entitled to the same exemptions, from’ levy and sale, by virtue of an execution, subject to the same exceptions, as prescribed in the last two sections, in the case of a householder. ““§ 1393. The pay and bounty of a non-commissioned officer, musician, or private, in the military or naval service of the United States; a land warrant, pension, or other reward, heretofore or here- after granted by the United States, or by a State, for military or naval services; a sword, horse, medal, emblem, or device of any kind, presented, as testimonial for services rendered in the military or naval service of the United States; and the uniform, arms, and. equipments, which were used by a person in that service, are also exempt from levy and sale, by virtue of an execution, and from seizure for non-payment of taxes, or in any other legal proceeding” (Burgett v. Fancher, 35 Hun, 647 [1885]; Stockwell v. Nat. Bank of Malone, 36 Hun, 583 [1885]; Matter of Winans, 5 Dem. 189: [1887] ).. “§ 1394. A right of action to recover damages, or damages awarded by a judgment, for taking or injuring personal property, exempt by © PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 7L law from levy and sale, by. virtue of an execution, are exempt, for one year after the collection thereof, from levy and sale, by virtue. of an_ execution, and from seizure in any other legal proceeding ” (Tillot- son v. Wolcott, 48 N. Y., 188 [1872]; Buepkwnll v, Nat. Bank of Monte, 36 Hun, 583, 586 [1885]). 2 BR. &., 982, Pil, Ch. XUL, Tit.1: 8 5. if the real and personal estate, or Sitter of them, ‘of any minister or priest exceed the value of one thousand five hundred dollars, that sum shall be deducted from the valuation of his property, and the residue shall be liable to taxation.” (Clark v. Norton, 58 Barb. 436 [1871]; ‘People ex rel. Westbrook v. Ogdensburg, 48 N. Y., 390 [1872].) “§ 7. The owner or holder of stock in any andorporaied company, liable to taxation on its capital, shall not be taxed as an individual for such’ stock.” (People ex rel. Lincoln v. Town of Barton, 44 Barb., 158 [1865]; 8. C., 29 How. Pr., 372 [1865].) Shares of stock of corporations created under the laws of this State are not taxable in the hands of the stockholders. , Nor are shares of stock of corporations created by other States tax- able, since the presumption is that they are taxed upon their capital in the home States. Negotiable bonds being evidence of a fixed indebt- edness are taxable at their actual value (People ex rel. Trowbridge v. Com’rs of Taxes, 4 Hun, 595 [1st dept. 1875]; affirmed 62 N. Y., 630). Under L. 1866, Ch. 546, § 33, exempting the real and personal property of a railroad corporation until a single track of said road shall be completed, for a term, however, not exceeding ten years — held, to exempt only for ten years from the date of the statute (Poughkeepsie, Hartford and Boston R._ R. Co. v. ee 23 Hun, 43 [1880]). Himamsray oF Minrriamen. Laws of 1854 (Ch. 398, § 15, p. 1044), repealed by Laws of 1865 (Ch. 612, § 146, p. 1265), exempted from taxation members of the militia to the amount of $500. The exemption from taxation of the militia by Laws of 1854 (Ch. 398, § 15, p. 1044), is repealed by Laws of 1865 (Ch. 612, § 146, p. 1265), by its oniission from the later statute; which amended the former one (People ex rel. Cunningham v. Roper, 35 N. Y., 629 [1866] ). The immunity granted was not a right of property, and so did not fall within the provisions of the federal Constitution prohibiting the impairment of contracts (Ib.). 72 ‘PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. _ To bring it within that provision the enactment in question must be shown to be in the nature of a private contract, as distinguished from . a mere act of general legislation (Ib.). The repeal of L. 1854, Ch. 398, exempting members of the militia who had served seven years and been honorably discharged, abrogated the privilege even as to those who had completed their service before the repeal (People ex rel Cunningham v. Roper, 35 N. Y.,, 329 [1866]). Laws of 1870 (Ch. 80, § 258), repealed by Laws of 1875 (Ch. 223, § 59), entitled a member of the National Guard to a deduction from his assessed valuation to the amount of $1,000. The omission from L. 1875, Ch. 223 of the eae. of L. 1870, ' Ch. 80, § 258, abrogated it (People ex rel. Sears v. Assessors of Brook- lyn, 84.N. Y., 610 [1881]; affirming 18 Hun, 386). The enlistment of a member of the National Guard before the repeal, did not give rise to a contract with the State by reason of the provision of L. 1875, Ch. 223 (above). Such enlistment _-was subject to the right of the State to modify or i _ act (Ib:). . Securities or Non-Resipents sENT Into THIS STATE FOR Coithacnit 2B. 5., 1049, Pt. I, Ch. XML, Tit. 5: “§ 3. When any bond, mortgage, note, contract, account, or other demand, belonging to any person not being a resident of this State, shall be sent to this State for collection, or shall be deposited in this State for the same purpose, such property shall be exempt from taxation; and nothing contained in this chapter shall be con- strued to render any agent of such owner liable to be assessed or taxed for such property; but every such agent shall be entitled to have any such property deducted from his assessment, upon making affidavit, before the assessors at the time appointed by them for. reviewing their assessments, that such’ property belongs to a non- resident owner, and therein specifying his name and residence.” An agent, resident in this State, for the owner of contracts for the sale of lands, who resided in another town of this State, was assessed and taxed upon the contracts in his hands. Held, erroneous (Lord v. Arnold, 18 Barb., 104, Erie Gen. T. [1854]). "Under 1B. S., 389, § 5, exempting agents of moneyed corporationsor . capitalists from taxation for any moneys in their possession or under their control, transmitted to them for the purpose of investment, or otherwise, and under 1 R. §. 419, § 3, exempting demands belonging to non-residents and sent to this State for collection, foreign capital . PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 73 © sent here for investment, is protected ‘from taxation though the securities received therefor are left here with the agents of the owner for collection. (Williams v, Supervisors of Wayne, 78 N. Y., 561 [1879]; ; reversing 14 Hun, 343] ). The assessment of bonds and mortgages, some of be sent by a non-resident for collection, the residue, reinvestments made by ‘the agent in whose hands they were taxed, — held, errone- ous, and the amount of the tax thereof subject to be refunded (Ib.). The provisions of Laws of 1855 (Ch. 37), subjecting the capital of non-residents, employed in business in this State,— held not to affect the above exemptions of the Revised Statutes (Ib.). Funds sent to New York for investment are not taxable’ here (People ex rel. Ferrer v. Com’rs of Taxes, 42 Hun, ae ). Laws 1857, Ch. 456, vol. 2, p..1: _ "$4, The deposits in any bank for savings which are due to -depositors, and the accumulations in any life insurance company organized under the laws of this State, so far as the said accumula- tions are held for the exclusive benefit of the assured, shall not be liable to taxation, other than the real estate and stocks ‘which may be owned by such bank or company, and which are now liable to taxation under the laws of the State.” _ \ Since the enactment of L. 1857, Ch. 456, §. 4, a savings bank can not be taxed on the deposits due from it (People ex‘rel. Ithaca Rerings Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883] ). L. 1884, Ch. 353, p. 429: “An act relating to corporations, associa- tions and societies engaged in life or casualty insurance business upon the-codperative or assessment plan, pursuant to the provisions of chapter one hundred and seventy-five of the Laws of eighteen hundred and éighty-three. “Séction 1. All money, benefits, charity, relief or aid eeeeaed or. collected by any corporation, association or society doing a life or casualty insurance business or both upon the cooperative or assess- ment plan, pursuant to the provisions of an act entitled ‘An act to _provide for the incorporation and regulation of cooperative or assess- ment life or casualty insurance associations and societies,’ passed April second, eighteen hundred and eighty-three; and which money, benefits, charity, relief or aid are derived from admission fees, dues and assessments, or any interests or other accretions thereon, and which are to be used for the payment of assessments, or for death ~-losses, or for benefits to disabled members, shall be exempt from ’ assessment and taxation.” 10 74 PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. Laws 1887, Ch. 556, p. 724: An act providing for the formation of co-operative savings and loan. associations. ' «g18. * * * All accumulations upon shares in said association ‘held by any person shall be exempt from execution and proceedings. supplementary thereto, to the amount of $600; and the association itself shail be deemed an institution for savings and not taxable under any corporation tax law which shall exempt savings banks, or institutions for savings from taxation.” ok * * xk: x! * * * “§ 93, Associations organized under this act shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 143 of the Laws of 1886.” ‘Persona Estate oF Gas-Licnt ComMPaNiEs. L. 1871, Ch. 95, p. 210: “An act to amend an act, entitled ‘An act to authorize the formation of gas-light companies,’ passed February sixteen, eighteen hundred and forty-eight.” ‘ * x * * * * ok * “§ 18. .* * * and the said municipal authorities shall have power to exempt any corporation formed under the provisions of this act from taxation on their personal property for a period not exceed- ing three years from the organization of said corporation.” VESsELS AND CoRPoRATIONS OwNING VESSELS. L. 1881, Ch, 483, p. 591: “An act to exempt from all State or local taxation vessels registered in any port in the State of New York, © owned by American citizens or corporations, or organized under the laws of the State of New York, and engaged in ocean commerce between ‘any port in the United States and any foreign port, and to exempt for a limited period the capital stock, franchise and earnings of such cor- porations from taxation for State and local purposes. . “$1: All vessels registered at any port in this State, and owned by any American citizen, or association, or by any corporation, incorpor- ated under the laws of the State of New York, engaged in ocean commerce between any port in the United States and any foreign port, are exempted from all taxation in this State, for State and local pur- poses; and all such corporations, all of whose vessels are employed between foreign ports and ports in the United States, are exempted from all taxation in this State for State and local purposes ‘upon - their capital stock, franchises and earnings for the period of fifteen | years.” . ; Vessels are not taxable in States where they are for the time being employed, other than that of the home port (Hays v. Pacific Mail S. 8., Co., 17 How. U. 8, 596 [1854]). It seems, that ships at sea, registered at a port within this State, and consequently having no situs elsewhere, are justly taxable to the resident owner (People ex re]. Hoyt v. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y., 224 [1861], reversing 33 Barb., 116). PERSONAL ESTATE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 75 The fact that a vessel is enrolled as a coaster at a port other than that’ ‘where she is regularly registered does not, make her subject to taxation at the port of such enrollment (Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. ATI [1872}). The personal property of a steamship company of this State, per- manently located in its business out of the State — held, exempt from taxation here, and not to be valued in the assessment as part of its capital stock (People ex.rel. Pacific Mail 8. 8. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 46 How. Pr., 315 [1873]). ‘ Where vessels were being built in another State for the relator, a ‘corporation of this State, under contracts which provided that it should have a lien on and ownership in the vessels. as the building ~ progressed up tothe amounts paid, and that the builder should insure for the benefit of the relator, and [payments had been made but no vessel had been delivered —held, that the title remained in the builder; the interest of the relator was in the nature of a lien, and the amounts expended therefor were taxable in New York, and that only an absolute ownership would convert such amounts into vessels. “having a situs elsewhere. The situs for purposes of taxation of sea- going vessels is the port where they are registered under the laws of _ the United States as their home port, without regard to the place of. - their employment (People ex rel. Pacific Mail 8. 8. Co. v. Commission- ers of Taxes, 58 N. Y., 242 [1874], affirming 1 Hun, ee Rartroap Arp Bonos. L: 1886, Ch. 816, p. 507; (see, also, L. 1881, Ch. 522, p. 700.) An act. in relation to the bonded indebtedness of villages, cities, towns and ° counties in this State created in aid of railroads, authorizing the issue of new bonds to take up those outstanding, originally issued i in aid of © yailroads, provides: He * * ok * * * a § 3. All new bonds issued: by any village, city, town or county in - this State, under the provisions of this act, shall be exempt. from taxa- ‘tion for town, county, municipal or State PEEpOHESS until the period - when they are made payable. See statutes relating to exemption of bonds and stocks of the city of New York, L. 1880, Ch. 552. 76 UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXEMPT. Vii. SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES EXEMPT FROM TAX~ ATION BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK. The following are cases which have arisen in the State of New York affecting questions connected with the exemption from taxation of United States bonds, including the premiums on their par value, United States currency, United States notes, treasury notes, fractional currency notes, checks for money of authorized officers of the United States, certificates of indebtedness of United States, certificates of deposit of United Rtaters whether belong- ing to individuals or corporations. Internat. Life Ass. Soc. v. Commrs. of Taxes (28 Barb., 319 [1858]); People ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Commrs. of Taxes (26 N. Y., 163 [1863]); People ex rel. Raplee v. Reddy (43 Barb., 539 [1865]); People ex rel. Kennedy v. Commrs. (35 N. Y., 423 [1866]; 8S. C., 4 Wall. 244 [1866]); People ex rel. Lockport City Bank v. Brd. of Edu- cation (46 Barb., 588 [1866]); People ex rel. Exch. Bank v. Brd. of Education (46 Barb., 598 [1866]); Monroe Savings Bank v. City of Rochester (37 N. Y., 365 [1867]); Williams v. Weaver (75 N. Y., 30 [1878]; 8. C., 100 U. S., 547 [1879]); Ulster Co. Savings Bank, Matter . of (20 Hun, 481 [1880]); Savings Bank v. Archbold (104 U. S., 708 [1881}). Stock of the United States cannot be taxed by a State, either by itself or as a part of the aggregate of the tax-payers’ property (People ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth v. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y., 2 Black, 620, reversing 23 N. Y., 192). A State law laying a tax on banks, “on a valuation equal’ to the amount of their capital stock paid in or secured to be paid in,” is a tdx on their property, and where such property consists of stocks of the United States, it is void (Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall., 200; reversing 8. C. as People ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Commissioners of Taxes’ of N. ¥., 40 Barb. 334). The exemption of United States bonds covers the excess of their market price over their par value (People ex rel. Leonard v. Com- missioners of Taxes, 90 N. Y., 63 [1882]). This last mentioned case limits, and practically overrules, People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes (76 N. Y., 64 [1879}). That the act of Congress of February 25, 1862, exempting stocks of ' UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXEMPT. 77 the United States from taxation is not retroactive, and that in the absence of such statute a State has the right to tax, see People ex rel. Hanover Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes of N. Y. (87 Barb., 635 [1862]). | United States bonds are exempt ‘(People ex rel. Lincoln 'v. Barton, 44 Barb., 148 [1865]). Legal tender notes issued by the United States are not subject to State taxation (Bank v. Supervisors, 7 Wall., 26 [1868], reversing People ex rel. Bank of N.Y. v. Supervisors, 37 N. Y., 21). Certificates of indebtedness issued by the United States are beyond the taxing power of the States (Banks v. Mayor, 7 Wall., 16 [1868], reversing People ex rel. Nat. Broadway Bank v. Hoffman, 37 N. Y., 9). People ex rel. Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Gardiner (48 Barb., 608) had also maintained the right to tax such certificates, ‘An assessment of the whole capital stock of a bank without deduct- ing the amount of United States bonds held by it, though erroneous, is not void (Genesee Nat. Bank v. Supervisors of Livingston, 53 Barb., 223 [1869]; see, also, People ex rel. pavnity v. Comrs. of Taxes, 41 How. Pr., 459 [1871]). A part of the indebtedness of a person examined by the assessors was a note payable on demand, the proceeds of which were used to buy United States bonds. Held, that the assessors erred in rejecting the note as an item of the indebtedness, although the transaction might have been a device to escape taxation (People ex rel. Thurman v. Ryan> 88 N. Y., 142 [1882]). . > A person has the right to buy government.bonds to avoid taxation, or borrow money upon them for like purpose; but money borrowed on governments is liable to taxation (People ex rel. Bowne v. Assessors of. Flushing, 3 N. Y. State Rep., 148 [1886], G. T.). The decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, that under Laws of New York, 1880 (Ch.'542), and Laws 1881 (Ch. 361), ' the amount of capital invested in United States bonds is not to be deducted in computing the tax imposed by these acts, affirmed by a divided court (Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 119 U. S., 129 [1886]; see 92 N. ¥., 328). (A reargument in -this case has been ordered before the full bench). The fact that the testator’s property is invested in United States bonds does not relieve a legacy from the collateral inheritance tax . under the Laws of 1885, Ch. 483 (Matter of Hoven, 5 Dem., 483 ee i. eo LOCAL TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS - A reference is proper under a certiorari issued pursuant to L. 1880; Ch. 269, to enable a relator to give further evidence than that adduced’ before the commissioners, concerning an investment in United States bonds (People ex rel. Manhattan R’y Co. v. Coleman, 16 N. Y. State Rep., 135 [1888]). IX. LOCAL: TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS OF STATE AND NATIONAL BANKS, AND THE REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. A. Srarures or THe Untrrep Srarss. The following provision of the Revised Statutes of the United States relates to the taxation of the shares and property of national banking associations. § 5219, Revised Statutes of the United States: “Nothing herein shall prevent all the shares in any association from being included in the valuation of the personal property of the owner or holder of such shares, in assessing taxes imposed by authority of the State within which the association is located; but the legislature of each. . State may determine and direct the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within the State, subject only to the two restrictions, that the taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such State, and that the shares of any national banking association owned by non-residents of any State shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located, and not elsewhere. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of associations from either State, county or municipal taxes, to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed.” (People ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth v. Comrs. of Taxes, 32 Barb., 509 [1860] ; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Comrs. of Taxes, 35 N. Y., 423 [1866]; Bradley v. The People, 4 Wall., 459 [1866]; People ex rel. Cagger v. Dolan, 36 N. Y., 59 [1867]; Nat. Albany Bank v. Hills, 5 Fed. R., 248 [1880]; S.C., Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S., 319 [1881]; Supervisors of Albany v. Stanley, 105 U. S., 305 [1881]; Stanley v. Albany County, 6F. R., 561 [1881]; 8. C., 15 F. R., 483 [1883]; People ex rel. Thurman v. Ryan, 88 N. Y., 142 [1882].) : Under section 5219 the shares of stockholders in a national bank are subject to State taxation, without regard to the fact that a part or the whole of the capital of the bank is invested in United States AND REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. : 79 securities declared. by Congress to be exempt from taxation by State. authority, but only when the act of the Legislature aythorizing such tax provides that it shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares of any of the banks organized under the State laws (Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall., 573 [1865], reversing City of Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y., 161 [1865]). . The shares of national banks are subject to taxation, under the laws of the State, though such tax must not be at a greater rate than upon other moneyed capital in the hand of individuals, nor must such tax exceed the rate imposed upon the shares of any of the banks organized under authority of the State (People ex rel. Kennedy v. Commissioners of Taxes, 35 N. Y., 423 [1866] ). This case was affirmed and the doctrine of Van Allen v. Assessors was reaffirmed in People v. Commissioners (4 Wall., 244 [1886] ; 8. C. sub. nom. People ex rel. Duer v. Commissioner of Taxes of New York, 6 Am. Law. Reg., N.S. 246), and in People v. Commissioner of Taxes (94 U. S., 415). The Court of Appeals, in City of Utica v. Churchill (33 N. ¥Y., 161), reversed as above, had held that the State statute in question did not exceed the limitations prescribed by the act of Congress of 1864, although it did not contain the express provision regarded as essential by the United States Supreme Court. Section 5219 applies to valuation as well as to the rate of percentage. Therefore a State statute permitting the deduction of debts due by the taxpayer, from the valuation of all his personal property except such shares, is void as to them (People v. Weaver, 100 U. 8., 539 [1879]; Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y., 30 [1878]; reversing Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Rep’r, 417 [1881] ). National bank shares can be assessed above par. No unjust ‘discrimination against national banks arises from the fact that State banks can divide up all their surplus while national banks are required to accumulate a surplus (People ex rel. Gallatin Nat. Bank v. Commis- sioner of Taxes, 67 N. Y., 516; affirming 8 Hun,.536, and affirmed in 4 Otto, 415.) The State act for the taxation of corporations generally (L. 1880, . Ch. 542) does not exempt individuals from assessment on shares thereof as part of their personal estate, so that the imposition of a higher assessment and heavier tax upon the shares of a national bank under L. 1880, Ch. 596, than upon the capital stock and personalty of other corporations, does not contravene the restriction of § 5219 of the 80 LOCAL TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS U.S. B.S. (L. 1880, Ch. 596 was repealed by L. 1882, Ch. 402, §1, but was substantially incorporated in L. 1882, Ch. 469; Albany City National Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed..Rep’r, 417 [1882, 2d U. 8. Circuit} ). Law of 1866 (Ch. 761) i is not wholly void in prohibiting the deduction of debts from the valuation of national bank stock. If the stockholder has debts to deduct he can still procure the deduction to be made, and the assessment is only voidable (Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. 8. 805 [1881)). “Moneyed capital tannot be said to be exempt from taxation by the laws of this State, because that portion of it which is invested in the shares of various classes of corporations is exempt. Not only does the State tax moneyed corporations generally, but the capital invested in these corporations is taxed in the hands of corporations ” [Watzace, J.] (First Nat. Bank of Utica v. Waters, 7 Fed. Rep’r, 152 [1881] ). Chapter 271, L. of 1881, declared that the amounts of all assess- ments attempted to be levied and taxes imposed upon the share- holders'in national and State banks in the city of Albany during the previous year, “are hereby assessed and levied upon such shareholders whose names now appear in said assessment-roll as assessed upon their bank shares.” The act limited the right of the shareholders to a review to the single ground of objection that the assessment was at a higher proportionate valuation than other property on the same roll. Held, that the statute was void as it imposed a tax upon a body of - individuals selected out of a general class, without apportionment or equality as betwecn themselves and the general class, or as between themselves, and as not giving them proper opportunity to challenge the assessment pany City Nat. peer v. Maher, 9 Fed. Rep’r, 884 [1ssa]). (See People ex rel. Merchants Nat. Bank v. Coleman, 41 Hun, 344 [1886] ;'and People v. Wall Street Bank, 39 Hun, 525). It seems that the exemption from State taxation of some moneyed capital, does not necessarily invalidate a statute authorizing an assess- ment upon National bank shares (McMahon v. Palmer, 102 N. Y. 176,, [1886]). Section 5219 is not intended to control the power of the State over taxation, or to prohibit exemptions, but only to prevent discrimination against national bank shares (Mercantile Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. Mayor, etc, of N. Y., 28 Fed. Rep’r, 776. 2d U. S. Cire.. [1886] ; ; affirmed 121 U.S., 188.) If the State tax the capital steak of certain corporations, but exempt, AND REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. 7 81 ‘the shares, while shares of national banks are taxed, but the capital stock itself is exempt — held, that this is no discrimination under § 5219 (Ib.). “The exemption of shares of life insurance companies, of stock and bonds of the city of New York, of bonds of other municipalities of the State and of deposits in savings banks — held, justified. by public policy, and not to indicate improper discrimination against national bank shares (Ib.). The fact that some corporations, or some personal property may be subject toa less rate of taxation than that of capital employed in banking corporations, will not alone vitiate the statute imposizig taxes upon shares in banks, unless it appears to be the clear intent of the ‘Legislature to discriminate against them (Ib.). Jt seems that investments in the shares of railroad, ferry, canal, manufacturing and other industrial corporations are not “ ‘moneyed eapital” within the meaning of United Bee Revised Biota § 5219 (Ib.). Held, that the statutes of Pennsylvania’ were open to the objection that they violated the principle of equality, which the act of Congress ‘intended to establish between ‘capital invested ‘in National bank shares, and other moneyed capital (Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689,: [1885]). Held, following (Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. 8. 188), that according to the Laws of New Jersey, under which the assessment was made, that the rate of taxation was not greater than that assessed upon the moneyed capital in the hands of individuals of that State ‘(Newark Banking Company v. Newark, 121 U. S. 163, [1887]). The varying methods of corporate taxation in the State of New York are not such as to make the taxation of National bank shares in that State violative of the restriction contained in section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of United States. The following. laws were considered: Laws 1857, Ch. 456; Laws 1880, Ch. 596, § 3; Laws 1881, Ch. 361; Laws 1882, Ch. 409, § 312; Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. 8. 188 [1887]. Under Laws 1866, Ch. 761, if party assessed claims an assess- ment to be in violation of section 5219 of the United States Revised . Statutes, as excessive, he must pursue the course provided by the statutes of New York for its correction, or resort to equity to enjoin the collection of the illegal excess, upon payment or tender of the 11 82 LOCAL TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS amount due upon what is conéeded to be a just valuation (Stanley v. Supervisors of Albany, 121 U. 8. 535, [1887]). The statute (Laws 1883, Ch. 345), legalizing and confirming upon certain conditions the assessments contained in certain assessment-rolls in the city of Albany, held not in conflict with acts of Congress respect- ‘ ing the taxation of national bank shares, and to be a valid exercise of the power of the Legislature to cure irregularities in assessments (Williams v. Supervisors of Albany, 122 U. §. 154, [1887)]). Section 5219 does not require a perfect equality of taxation between . State and national banks, but only that the shares of the national banks shall not be taxed at a higher rate than other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals. Within the limits, that the system of State taxation of its own citizens, of its own banks, and of its own corpora- tions shall not work a discrimination unfavorable to the holders of the shares of national banks, the manner of assessing and collecting all taxes by the States is uncontrolled by the act of Congress. We claim that a State statute taxing savings banks on the amount of their paid-up capital, but not the shares held by individual shareholders, ’ worked a discrimination,— held, unfounded ae Bk. v. Daven- port, 123 U. S., 83 [1887]). This last case was followed in the case of Bank “i Redemption v. Boston (125 U. 8., 60 [1888]). The manifest intention of section 5219 is to permit the State in which a national bank is located to tax, subject to the limitations prescribed, all the shares of its capital stock without regard to their ownership. The proper inference is, that the law permits in the particular instance, the taxation of the national banks owning shares of the capital stock of another national bank by reason of that ownership, on the same footing with all other shares (Ib. ). According to the method in the State of Ohio, a State board of equalization has the power to ‘equalize the valuation of bank shares in the different counties as between such shares, but has no power to equalize the valuation of bank shares for taxation as compared with other moneyed capital in the State. While there was no absolute neces- sity that this method should result in a discrimination, it is one of the probabilities that it should produce such a result. Held, an unlawful discrimination under section 5219. In this case the collection of the tax to the extent of the discrimination was enjoined (Whitbeck v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Cleveland, 127 U. S., 193 [1888]). ; The Ohio laws make no provision for the deduction of the bona fide AND REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. «83 indebtedness of any shareholder from the shares of his’ stock, and provide no means whereby said deduction can be secured,—held, that it was not a condition precedent to the granting of relief that a demand should have been made for such deduction prior. to the delivery of the rolls to the collector (Ib.). ‘3B. Srarurzes or THe Stare or New York Provmprye For TaxaTion oF- SHAREHOLDERS or Banks. L. 1882, Ch. 409, p. 581: “An act to revise the statutes of this State relating to Banks, Banik. ing and Trust Companies.” * * * * * x: * * “§ 312, The stockholders in every bank or banking association organ- ized under the authority of this State, or of the United States, shall be assessed and taxed on the value of their shares of stock therein ; said shares shall be included in the valuation of the personal property of such stockholders in the assessment of taxes at the place, city, town or ward where such bank or banking assaciation is located, an not else- where, whether the said stockholders reside in said place, city, town or ward or not; but in the assessment of said shares, each stockholder shall be allowed all the deductions and exceptions allowed by law in assessing the value of other taxable -personal property owned by individual citizens of this State, and the assessment and taxation shall- not be at a. greater rate than ig made or assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this State. In making such assessment there shall also be deducted from the value of such | shares such sum as is in the same proportion to. such value as is the assessed value of the real estate of the bank or banking association, and in which any portion of their capital is invested, in which said shares are held to the whole amount of the capital stock of said‘ bank or banking association. Nothing herein contained shall be held or - construed to exempt the real estate of banks or banking associations from either State, county or municipal taxes, but the same shall be subject to State, county, municipal and other taxation to the same extent and rate, and in the same manner according to its value as other real estate is taxed. The local authorities charged. by law with the assessment of these said shares shall, within ten days after they have | completed such assessment, give written notice to each bank or bank- ing association of such assessment of the shares of its respective shareholders, and no personal or other notice to such shareholders of such assessment shall be necessary for the purpose of this act.” ‘ [See Laws of 1865, Ch. 97; L. of 1866, Ch. 761; L. of 1880, Ch. 596; L. of 1881, Ch. 477}. (Bank of State of N. Y. v. Farmers’ Branch, etc., of O., 36 Barb., 332 [1862]; People ex rel. Bank ‘of Commerce v. Comrs.of Taxes, 40 Barb., PY 84 LOCAL TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS 834 [1863]; Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573 [1865]; People| ex rel. Lincoln v. Assessors of Barton, 44 Barb., 158 [1865]; Nat. Bank of Chemung v. City of Elmira, 6 Lans., 123 [1871]; 8. C., 53 N. Y., 52 [1873]; People ex tel. Otsego Co. Bank v. Board of Super- visors, 51 N. Y., 404 [1873]; Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y., 30; 8. C., 100 U. S., 547; People ex rel. Williams v. Weaver, 100 U.S., 539; McMahon v. Palmer, 11 Daly, 214 [1882]; 12 Daly, 362 [1884]; 102 N. Y., 176 [1886]; People ex rel. Thurman v. Ryan, 88 N. Y., 142 .[1882]). ; hs ; , CasEs ARISING Prior ro Present SysTEem. The following cases arose upon the subject of taxation of banks or their shareholders before the adoption in 1865 bf the present Pater of taxing the shareholders: A bank which did not go into regular operation until after a village tax had been voted, but derived an income from its capital before the assessment was completed, held to have been properly assessed (Oswego Bank v. Oswego, 12 Wend., 544 [1834]). Surplus over the nominal capital not taxable under 1 Revised Statutes, 414 (Bank of Utica v. Utica, 4 Paige, 399 [1834] People v. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20 [1842]). The right to commutation under Laws 1853 (Ch. 654) did not extend to city taxes (Mayor of Troy v. Mutual Bank, 20 N. Y., 387 [1857]). Where a bank has actually ceased to do a banking business, with a view to closing its transactions as ‘such, it does not continue liable to taxation as ‘a bank during the period of'six years after the redemption of ninety per cent of its circulating notes provided by statute (L. 1859, Ch. 236; Metcalf v “Messenger, 46 Barb., 325 [1864]). ‘Stock in National bank i is taxable, but not where the bank was located, if in a town or ward other than stockholder’s residence, before Laws 1865, Ch. 97, § 10 (Utica v. Churchill, 33 N. Y., 161; affirming 43 Barb. 550 [1865]; overruled in part by First National Bank of Sandy Hill v. Fancher, 48 N. Y., 424). ° A bank formed under the general law, having distributed a part of its capital in voluntary dissolution, and taken up an equivalent amount of its stock, cannot ‘be assessed on its entire capital (People ex. rel. Genesee County Bank v. Olmstead, 45 Barb., 644 [1866]). A: bank is not exempted from taxation on personal property, because the amount of its debts exceeds its capital, after deducting therefrom the amount invested in United States bonds. The statute requiring the deduction of the debts owing from the value of personal property, a AND REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. © 85 does not apply to moneyed corporations (People ex rel. Lockport City ‘Bank v. Board of Education, 46 Barb., 588 [1866]; People ex rel. | ‘Exchange Bank v. Board of Education, Id. 598). ' Construction of Laws 1853, Ch. 654, as affecting pank tax in Troy es Manufacturer’s Bank v. Mayor, ete., of Troy, 24 How. Pr., , 250 [1859}). Bis 5 Cases Antsinc Unper Present System. =. , ‘The following cases arose under the present system of taxing share- holcers of banks inaugurated by Laws of 1865, Ch. 97: /The shares of a bank whose capital is invested in stocks of the United States are to be assessed at the place where such bank is located, and not ‘elsewhere (People ex rel. Kennedy v. Commissioners ‘of Taxes, 35 N. Y., 423 [1866] ; affirmed in 4 Wall., 244). ‘Bank shares should be assessed at their true value: ‘irrespective of the nominal par value (People ex rel. Williams v. Assessors of a 2 Hun, 583 [1874]). ‘The actual and not the par value of shares ‘of stock of national banks is the basis of assessment (People ex rel. Gallatin National Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes, 67 N. Y., 516; affirming 8 Hun, 536 [1876]; S. C. 4 Otto, 415 [1876]).. A shareholder in a bank or banking association, is not entitled to a deduction from the assessment of his shares under Laws 1866, Ch. 761, on account of his debts (People ex rel. Cagger v. ‘Dolan, 36 N. Y¥., 59 [1867]; overruled by People v. Weaver, 100 U. S., 539). Under Laws of 1866 (Ch. 761), when the assessors have fixed the value of the shares, a proportionate deduction is to be made of the assessed yalue of the real estate. The deduction -is thus made from the real and not from the nominal value of the capital (People ex rel. Trades- men’s Nat. Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes, 69 N. Y., 91 [1877] 3 revers- ing 9 Hun, 650). ' The situs of the property in national bank shares may for the pur- poses of taxation be separated from the residence of the owner, under the banking act (Tappen v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 19 ‘Wall, 490 [1873] ). In proceedings by a bank to compel supervisors to, refund taxes claimed to be illegally assessed, because the assessors ‘did not deduct .the value of the real estate when assessing the shares, but assessed both at full value —held that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the assessors would be presumed to have made the deduction required by law; ‘and, that their affidavit that they had nyscseed the taxable personal estate at the full value thereof was not evidence that the ‘86 LOCAL TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS. deduction was not made (Matter of Farmers’ Nat. Bank, 1 Thomp. & C., 383 [1873]). The requirement that the shares shall be assessed in the town or ward where the bank is situated is valid, since they are susceptible of a, separate situs from the person of the owner (Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y:, 30 [1878]). Placing the value of bank shares in a separate item in the column of personalty does not invalidate the assessment, and does not con- travene section 5219 U. S. R. S.| Where the assessors valued bank: shares at their par instead of their market value — held, that this, though erroneous, did not make them individually liable, as they had jurisdiction (Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y., 30 [1878]; affirmed, 100 U. 8., 547.) . : The omission of a city clerk to extend upon the assessment-roll the amount to be paid by each shareholder, until after such roll has been delivered to the city treasurer, does not render the taxation of such. shares void (First Nat. Bank of Utica v. Waters, 7 Fed. Rep’r, 152 [1881]). ' The fact that the commissioners reduced the valuation of the real, estate of a bank, does not authorize them to increase the valuation of the shares without the notice which the law requires after the books are opened for correction. In Laws 1882, Ch. 409, §§ 314, 317, 318 apply to the time when assessments of the value of the capital stock of banks shall be made as well as of other personal property (Apgar v. Hayward, 21 Jones & 8. 357 [1886]). ; In the assessment of shares of national banks in the city of New York, under L. 1880, Ch. 596 § 3, (amended by L. 1881, Ch. 477), when the owner does not reside in the ward where the bank is located, and has-no real estate therein, it is proper that the assessment be made upon a list specially prepared for that purpose, although the owner lives and is assessed for personal property in another ward. Such a mode of assessment is not in conflict with section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (McMahon v. Palmer, 102 N. Y. 176 [1886] ; affirming 12 Daly, 362). L. 1882, Ch. 409, p. 472. Act revising bank statutes. “$313. There shall be kept at all times in the office where the business ‘of each bank or banking association organized under the authority of this State, or of the United States, shall be transacted, a full and correct list of the names and residences of all the stockholders therein and of the number of shares held by each; and such list shall be subject to the inspection of the officers authorized to assess taxes AND REAL ESTATE OF BANKS. 87 during the business hours of each day in which business may be legally transacted. - .. “§ 314. When the owner of stock in any bank or banking association organized under the laws of this State, or of the United States, shall not reside at the same place where the bank or banking association is located, the collector and county treasurer shall, respectively, have the same powers as to collecting the tax to be assessed by this act as they have by law when‘the person assessed has removed from the town, ward or county in which the assessment was made, and the county treasurer, receiver of taxes or other officer authorized to receive such tax from the collector may, all or either of them, have an action to collect the tax from the avails of the sale of his, her or their shares of stock, and the tax on the share or shares of said stock shall be and remain a lien thereon from the day when the property is by law assessed, till the payment of said tax, and if transferred after such day, the transfer shall be subject to such lien. “§ 315. For the purpose of collecting the taxes to be assessed under the last three preceding sections of this act, and in addition to any © other law of this State, not in conflict with the constitution of the United States relative to the imposition of assessment and collection of taxes, it shall be the duty of every such bank or banking association and the managing officer or officers thereof to retain so much’ of any dividend or dividends belonging to such stockholder as shall be necessary to pay any taxes assessed in pursuance of the last three preceding sections of this act, until it shall be made to appear to such officer or officers that such taxes have been paid. * * * * “§ 818. The shareholders of any bank, banking association, or cor- poration doing a banking business under the general banking law or a special charter of this State shall be assessed and taxed with respect to their shares of stock, only at the same rate and place, to the same extent, and in the same manner, as shareholders of national banks may be liable atthe same time to be assessed and taxed by authority of the State of New York; provided however, that no debts shall be deducted from any such assessment of any person applying for the benefit of this act, which have been deducted from the assessment of other personal property of such person; and in making application for such deduction, every person making the application shall make oath that he has not applied to have such debts deducted from any other assessment against him, and that no such deduction has been made. “8819. It is hereby declared that the true intent and meaning of the last preceding section of this act is to place and maintain share- holders of banks, associations and corporations aforesaid upon an equality, in the particular in this act referred to, with the shareholders of national ‘bunks organized under the act of congress, entitled ‘An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof, approved June third, eighteen hundred and sixty-four;’ and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions hereof are hereby repealed.” On the State taxation of national banks, see 15 Alb. L. J., 374. This act of 1882, Ch. 409, embodies substantially Laws 1880, Ch. 596, which was repealed by Laws 1882, Ch. 402 § 1. ¥ 88 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. _ The failure of the assessors to place bank shareholders’ names upon the assessment-roll, in accordance with Laws 1880, Ch. 596, renders _ the tax upon their shares’ void, notwithstanding a separate list of such shareholders was kept by the assessors, with the knowledge of the shareholders, which ‘list exhibited names, number of shares, and assessable value of all of them (Albany City National Bank v. Maher, 6 Fed. Rep’r., 417 [1881], 2nd U. 8. Circuit). The collection of a tax which discriminates against the shares of national banks, will be restrained by injunction (First National Bank. v. Treasurer of Lucas County, 25 Fed. Rep r., 749 [1885]). Where State laws permit the deduction of debts from the valuation of personal property, such deduction must be allowed in assessin g national bank shares (Richards v. Rock Rapids, 31 Fed. Rep’r., 505 [1887]). Before . the assessment of shares in national banks can be held invalid, it must. appear that there is a higher burden of taxation imposed upon the money thus invested, than upon other moneyed capital. An express exemption of deposits in savings banks, the stock of which is taxable, does not make the taxation cf national bank stock invalid, there being no discrimination against such stock (Richards v. Rock Rapids, 31 Fed. Rep’r., 505 [1887]).. The following acts in relation to the taxation of banks and moneyed: corporations, were repealed by Laws 1882, Ch. 402, § 1; Laws 1847, Ch. 419, Laws 1863, Ch. 240; Laws 1865, Ch. 97; Tawa 1866, Ch. 761; Laws 1880, Ch. 140; Laws 1881, Ch. 477.. X. LOCAL TAXATION OF CAPITAL STOCK AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND REAL ESTATE OF CORPORATIONS. (Notr. — The system of taxing corporations has been changed in impor- ' tant particulars in the following years: 1880, 1853, 1857. The dates affixed to the cases cited serve as an approximate clue to the statutes involved.) 2R.8., 1086: Pt. I, Ch. XIIL, Tit. 4. “Section 1. All moneyed or stock corporations deriving an income or profit from their capital, or otherwise, shall be liable to taxation on their capital in sms manner hereinafter preseribed.” (Columbian Mtg. Co. v. Vanderpoel, 4 Cow., 556 [1825]; Ontario Bank v. Bunnell, 10 Wend., 186 [1833]; Webb v. Rice, 1 Hill, 606 [1841]; Bank of Watertown v. Assessors Town of Watertown, 25 Wend., 686 [1841]; People ex rel. McMaster and Harvey v. Supervisors Niagara, LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 89 4 Hill, 20 [1842] a Farmers’ Loan and Trust v. Mayor N. Y., 7 Hill, 261 _ [1843]; Super. Niagara v. People, 7 Hill, 504 [1844]; Sun Mut. Ins. ‘Co. v. Mayor N. ¥., 8 Barb., 453 [1850]; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor of N. ¥., 5 Sand., 10 [1850]; Sandford v. B’d Supervisors of N. ¥., 15 How. Pr., 173 [1858]; Oswego Starch Factory v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y., 449 [1860]; People ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth v. Comrs. 32 Barb., 509 [1860]; People ex rel. Bk. Commonwealth v. Comrs. Taxes, 20 How. P., 182 (1860]; People ex rel. Bk. Commonwealth ' v. Comrs. Taxes one Assessments, 23 N. Y¥., 192 [1861]; People ex rel. Lincoln v. Assessors Town Barton, 44 Barb. 148 [1865]; People ex rel. Lincoln v. Town Barton, 29 How. P., 371 [1865]; People ex rel. ~Cagger v. Dolan, 36 N. Y., 61 [1867]; People ex rel. B. R. R. v. Barker, 48 N. Y., 79 [1871]; People ex rel. Dunkirk R. R. v. Cassity, 46. Y., 52 [1871]; People ex rel. W. Gas Light Co. v. Assessors, 16 Hun, 197 [1878] -) Moneyed or stock corporations, deriving an income or profit from their capital are liable to taxation, although the income be not equal to the expenditures for the year preceding, the assessment (People ex rel. Commercial Ins. Co. v Supervisors of N. Y., 18 Wend., 605 [1836)). Any income or profits means not net profits but any income, though : less than expenses (People v. Supervisors of N. Y., 18 Wend., 605 - , [1836]). , Associations formed under the general banking law (L. 1838, Ch. 260, p. 245) are corporations, and so liable to tax on their capital: (People ex rel, Bank of Watertown v. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 616 {1841}). Under the law of 1849 a mutual insurance company is taxable upon the amount of premium notes taken in advance as a part of its capital (New York City Ins, Co. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 280 [1854]). A corporation having acquired - a fund from earned premiums of . insurance paid to it, could not, under its charter, divide it among its members, and it had no other assets. Held, that it: was taxable on such fund as capital (Mutual Ins. Co. of’ Buffalo v. Supervisors of Erie, 4.N. Y., 442 [1851]), - - A fund accumulated by a mutual insurance company from its profits, © which is to continue liable for losses, but for which certificates are issued to members, is to be taxed as a part of the company’s capital . (Sun Mut. Ins. Co. y. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 8 N. Y., 241 [(1853]). a 12 90 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. A joint-stock association formed under Laws of 1849 (Ch. 258) and Laws of 1854 (Ch. 245) is a corporation within the tax laws, and liable to- taxation on its capital (Sandford v. Supervisors of N. Y., 15 How. _ Pr., 172 [1858]). Corporations not created by the laws of this State are to be regarded as non-residents, and if they transact business here are to be taxed on all sums invested in their business the same as if they were residents ‘(International Life Assurance Soc. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 28 Barb., 318 [1858]). ‘ To exempt personal property of a corporation from local taxation because it is outside the State, the change of location must be per- manent and unequivocal (People ex rel. Pacific Mail 8.-8. Co., v. Com- missioner of Taxes of N. Y., 64.N. Y., 541 [1876]; affirming 5 Hun, 200). The investment by a steamship company, located and taxable in this State, in vessels owned by and being built for it without the State does not exempt it from taxation upon those vessels (Ib.). The Legislature may provide a mode of assessing corporations in one city different from that which prevails elsewhere (People ex rel. Parsons Manuf. Co. v. Moore, 11 N. Y. State Rep’r, 859 [1887] ). Taxation or Francuisrs or Savines Bangs. nae of 1867 Sc 861, p. 2165), amending Laws of 1866 Ch. 761, §7: * “The privileges and franchises granted. by «. the japan ee this State to savings banks or institutions for savings, are hereby declared to be personal property and liable to taxation, as . Such in a town or ward where they are located, to an amount not ' exteeding the gross sum of their surplus earned (after deducting the amount of such surplus invested in United States securities), and the officers of such banks or institutions may be examined on oath by assessors as to the amount of such surplus and securities; and the property of such banks and institutions shall be liable to seizure and sale for the payment of all taxes assessed upon them for said privileges and franchises.” (Laws of 1875, Ch. 371, § 56, repealed Laws of 1866, Ch. 761, § 7 [above], and Laws of 1867, Ch. 861 [above]; but Laws of 1882, Ch. 402, § 1, repealed Laws 1875, Ch. 371, and also Laws of 1866, Ch. 761, § 7; but not Laws of 1867 Ch. 861.) The repeal by Laws of 1882 (Ch. 402, § 1) of Laws of 1875 (Ch. 371), . revived Laws of 1867, chapter 861 (People ex rel. Ithaca Savings- Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883] ). The tax imposed on the privileges and franchises of savings banks by Laws of 1866, chapter 761 (repealed) — held valid, although one of oN: LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 9L its privileges was the right to invest in United. States securities’ ‘securities (Monroe County Sav. Bank v. City of Reohester, 87 N. Y., 365 [1867]). v4 ‘Under L. 1867, Ch. 861, § 1, if the surplus of a savings bank-is not - invested in United States securities, it may be assessed for its privi- leges and franchises as personal property to the extent of its surplus not so invested. But before it can be held that there is a surplus: liable to taxation, there must be deducted from the total assets of the bank-the amount of all debts owing by it, and ‘the amount of its assets ‘invested in United States securities (People ex. rel. Ithaca Savings Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883}). A savings bank organized under Laws of 1863 (Ch. 176), ian of 1864 (Ch. 94) and' Laws of 1868 (Ch. 141), which gives no right to issue stock, or to hold capital as such, has no capital taxable under 2 R. S., (7 ed.) 981, § 1 and p. 982, § 3, and hence is, under § 4 thereof, exempt from taxation on its personal estate (People ex rel. Ithaca Savings Bank v. Beers, 67 How. Pr., 219 [1883]).’ Loca TaxaTION OF Forrien CorPoRATIONS. For the statute governing the local taxation of foreign corporations in general, see L. 1855, Ch. 37, cited above in Chapter VI. This statute applies only to the personalty of such corporations and not to their ‘real estate (People ex rel. Keystone Gas Co. v. Assessors of Olean, 15 N. Y. State Rep., 462 [1888], G. T.). , pet Peper or Revisep Sraturns Reiatine Gumsais ro Loca Taxa- TION ‘oF CoRPORATIONS. 2B. S. 1036. “§ 2. The president, cashier, secretary, treasurer, or other proper officer, of every such incorporated company, shall, on or before the first. day of July in each year, make.and deliver to the assessors, or one of - ‘them, of the town or ward in which such company is liable to be taxed, according to the provisions of the sixth section of the second title of this chapter, a written statement, specifying: “1, The real estate, if any, owned by such company, the towns or wards in which the same is situated, and the sums actually paid therefor; “2. The capital stock actually paid in and secured to be paid in, excepting therefrom the sums paid for real estate, and the amount of such capital stock held by the State, and by any incorporated literary’ or charitable institutions; and, “3. ‘The town or ward in which the principal office or place of trans- acting the financial business of such company is situated; or, if there be no such principal office, the town or ward in which its operations. are carried on, or in which it is liable to be taxed, under the provisions. of this chapter.” ‘Th ‘92 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. " (Int. Life Assur. Society . Comrs. Taxes, 28 Barb., 319 [1858]; Ins. Companies v. Comrs. Taxes, 17 How. Pr., 208 [1858]; Oswego Starch Factory v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y., 451 [1860]; People ex rel. Citizons’ Gas Light Co. v. Assessors City of Brooklyn, 39 N. Y., 82 [1868]; People ex rel. Dunkirk R. R. v. Cassity, 46 N..Y., 52 [1871]; People ex rel. U. &B. BR. BR. Co. v. Shields, 6 Hun, 556 [1876]; Peter Cooper’s Glue Factory v. McMahon, 15 Abb. N. ©., 314 [1885].) The intimation of Chancellor Watworrn, in ‘Utica Cotton Manu- facturing Company v. Supervisors of Oneida (1 Barb. Ch., 447 [1846]), that the real estate of corporations is to be assessed in the town or ward where the principal place of business is situated, disre- garded, and that of Judge Drvto, in Oswego Starch Factory v. Dollo- way (21 N. Y., 452 [1860]), that such real estate is assessable where it lies, followed (Hudson River. Bridge Co. v. Patterson, 11 Hun, 527 {1877]; affirmed in 74 N. Y., 365). Where the exemptions allowed to a corporation exceeded the assessed value of its capital and surplus, the assessors entered upon a separate roll the amount of the national bank stock owned by it, the amount being less than the difference between the capital and exemp- tions. | Held, that such bank stock could not be the subject of an assess- ment, since when included in the capital the total still fell short of the amount allowed as exempt, and such an assessment was in derogation of the federal statute (People ex rel: Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 44 Hun, 47 [1887]). 28. 8., 1036. “83, The president or other proper officer of every such company, shall also deliver to the comptroller, on or before the first day of July in each year, a written statement, containing the same matters required by the foregoing section, to be specified in the statement to be delivered to the assessors. «The statements required by this and the preceding section of this title, shall be certified under the oath of the said president or other proper officer, to be in all respects just and true.” The valuation of the capital stock made by the secretary of a com- pany in the statement to the assossors, held sufficient evidence of value | upon which to base the assessment, notwithstanding the company sought by certiorari to correct the assessment by deducting the amount of debts owed by it from the sum indicated in the statement, since the value of the franchises might make up the difference (People ex rel. Buffalo Mut. Gas Light Co. v. Steele, 1 Buff. Super. Ct., 345 [1873}). ‘LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 93 Corporations may be assessed though no ‘statement’ is. made by them to the assessors as required by law. Such a statement when . made is not conclusive upon the assessors. It is the judgment.of the assessors that the law requires (People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 76 N. Y., 64 [1879]). _ The commissioners of assesstnent have jurisdiction to assess a cor- ‘poration that omits to make a statement of its financial condition. If such a corporation omits to appear and demand a correction of the preliminary assessment, it can obtain no relief from overvaluation by certiorari (People ex rel. The Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 99 N. Y., 254). ‘ _ Nor does the failure to file such a statement’ prevent a party aggrieved from appearing before the assessors (Ib.). . This case is distinguished from People ex rel. Mutual Un. Tel. Co. vz ‘Comrs., 99 N. Y., 254, because in the latter case the relator did not. appear before the commissioners on the grievance day, and hence was. deemed to have waived any right of review (Ib.). Itis the duty of a company to make the statement required by sections 3 and 4 above; but the courts have no power to impose any other: punishment than that prescribed by the statute, and a writ of certiorart ; will not be quashed on the ground that the return shows that no such statement has been made(People ex rel. West Shore R. R. Co. v. Pitman, 9 N. Y. State Rep., 469 [1887], G. T.). 2 BR. §., 1037. Pe od “84, If the statements above required, or either of them, shall . not be furnished by any company to the assessors and to’ the. comptroller, within thirty days after the time above provided, the company neglecting to furnish such statements, or either of them, shall forfeit to the people of this State, for each statement.omitted to be furnished, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars: and it shall be the duty of the comptroller to furnish the attorney-general .with an account of all companies that shall neglect to render such lists, that he may prosecute for the penalties hereby imposed. _ “8 5. If any company, that shall be prosecuted for any such penalty, shall pay the costs of prosecution and furnish the statement required, the comptroller, if he shall be satisfied that the omission was not willful, may, in his discretion, discontinue such suit. - “$6, The assessors shall’ enter all incorporated companies from which such statements shall have been received by them, and the property of such companies, and the property of all other incorporated ‘ companies, liable to taxation in their respective towns, in their assess- ment rolls, in the following manner: ° | ‘ “1. They shall insert in the first column of their assessment rolls, the name of each incorporated company in their respective towns or 94 ' LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. wards liable 'to taxation on its capital or otherwise; and under its _ name, they shall specify the amount of its capital stock paid in, and secured to be paid in, the amount paid by such company for real estate then belonging to such company, wherever the same may be situated, the amount of all surplus profits or reserved funds, exceed- ing ten per cent of their capital, after deducting therefrom the said |) '') amount of said real estate, and the amount of its stock, if any, belong- ing to the State and to incorporated literary and charitable institutions __ {as amended by L. 1853, Ch. 654, p. 1240). “2. In the second column,.they shall enter the quantity of real estate owned by such company, and. situated within their town or ward; and.in the third column the actual value thereof, estimated as in other cases. . 543 “3. In the fourth column, they shall enter the amount of the capital ‘stock of every incorporated company, paid in, and secured to be paid «::: in, and of all surplus profits or reserve funds as aforesaid, after deduct-. ing the sums paid out for all.the real estate of such company, wherever the same may be situated and then belonging to it, and'the amountof.. stock, if any, belonging to the people of. this State and to incorporate | literary and charitable institutions.” ‘(As amended by Laws 1853, Ch. 654, p. 1240; see Laws 1857, Ch. 456, Vol. 2, p. 1, which is to be read and construed with this section, and is to be regarded as amending -and controlling it.) » ; L. 1857, Ch. 456, Vol. 2, p. 1: “§ 3. The capital stock of every company liable to taxation, except’ such part of it as shall have been excepted in the assessment-roll, or as shall have been exempted by law, together with its surplus profits or reserved funds, exceeding ten per cent of its capital, after deducting the assessed value of its real estate, and all shares of stockin other ' corporations actually owned by such company, which are taxable upon* their capital stock under the laws of this State, shall be assessed at its actual value, and taxed in the same manner as the other personal and real estate of the county.” [For special provisions applicable to counties containing more than 300,000 inhabitants see L. 1885, Ch. 411-below, XIL ad fin.J (People ex rel. Bk. of Commonwealth v. Comrs. Taxes, 32 Barb., 509 . [1860]; People ex rel. Bk. of Commonwealth v. Comrs. Taxes, 23 N. Y.' 193 [1861]; People ex rel. Bk. of Commerce v. Comrs. Taxes, 40 Barb., 334 , [1863]; People ex rel. Am. Linen Thread Co. v. Howland, 61 Barb., 273 [1871] ; People ex rel. Genesee Co. Bank v. Olmsted, 45 Barb., 644 [1866] - ' People ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 38 N. Y., 89 [1868] ; North Shore Staten I. Ferry Co., Matter of, 63 Barb., 571 [1872]; People ex rel. Otsego Bk. v. Supervisors, 51 N. Y., 404 [1873]; People ex. rel. Pacific Mail 8. 8. Co. v. Comrs. Taxes, 1 Hun., 145 [1874]; 8. C., 47 How. Pr., 170 [1874]; People ex rel. Williams v. Assessors, 2 Hun, 588 [1874]; People ex rel. Pac. Mail 8. 8. Co. v. Comrs, Taxes, 58 N. Y., 242 [1874]; People ex rel. Trowbridge v. Comrs. Taxes, 4 Eun, 597 . LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 95 [1875], affirmed 62 N. Y., 630; People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. 8. Co. » Comrs. Taxes, 5 Hun, 200 [1875]; People ex rel. Pac. Mail 8. 8. Co. vw Comrs. Taxes, 64 N. Y., 541: [1876]; People ex. rel. W. Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 16 Hun, 197 [1878] ; People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co.'v. Comrs., 76 N. Y., 64 [1879].) . ve A railroad corporation is not liable to taxation upon its capital as ‘personal estate, for that part thereof which is invested in the lands over which it runs, and in the railways and other fixtures connected therewith; but that part-of the corporate property is to be taxed in the several towns and wards in’ which the same is situated, as real - estate, and at its actual value at the time of the assessment (Mohawk . & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 384 [1834]). And it seems it is liable to be so taxed on its: real estate, though it is not in receipt of any profits or income [per Bronson, J.] (People ex rel. McMaster v. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20 [1842)). ' The capital stock of a railroad corporation which is not invested in- its railways, or other real estate, is to be taxed as personal property, _in the,town or ward where the principal office or place for transacting the financial concerns of the company is situated (Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 384 [1834]).° In Bank of Utica v. City of Utica, (4.Paige, 399, decided in 1834), Chancellor Watworrs held, that under the provisions of the general tax law (1 BR. S., part 1, Ch. 13, pp. 387, 414), a corporation liable to taxation upon its capital, could be taxed for only so much of the capi- _ tal stock paid in or secured as will remain after deducting therefrom the actual cost of all the real estate of the corporation, but could not be taxed upon its surplus fund over the capital’ stock remaining ‘ undistributed. No deduction is to be made for losses of capital :(Farmers’ Loah & Trust Co. v. Mayor, ete., of N. ¥., 7 Hill, 261 [1843]). No respect is to be paid either to the accumulations or losses of capital, in the course of the business of the company, but the amount paid and secured to be paid as capital is taken as the true sum to be” inserted in the assessment-roll. The word “income” means that which is received from any business or investment of capital without , reference to outgoing expenditures (per Bronson, J.] (Ib.). + The word “profits” generally means the gain which i is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and expenditures are taken into account, [per Bronsoy, J.] (Ib.). To enable a corporation to have its name stricken from the assess- a 96 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. ment roll: pursuant to 1 RB. S., 416, § 9, the affidavit presented to the board of supervisors must show that the company is not in receipt of any profits or income; an affidavit that it is not in receipt of any net profits or income is insufficient (People ex rel. McMaster v. Super- visors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20 [1842]). Associations formed under the general banking law are corporations within the meaning of 1R.S. 414, §1, and liable to taxation upon their capital thereunder (Supervisors of Niagara v. People ex rel. McMaster, 7 Hill, 504 [1844]; affirming s. c, as People ex rel McMaster v. Supervisors of Niagara, 4 Hill, 20). Under the ninth section of the fourth title of the article of the Revised ‘Statutes relative to the assessment of taxes on incorporated companies, the real as well as the personal estate of a corporation is exempted from taxation, provided a satisfactory affidavit is presented. to the supervisors showing that such company is not in receipt of any income or profit, either from its real or personal estate (Utica Cotton Mg Co. v. Supervisors of Oneida, 1 Barb. Ch. 432 [1846]). If such an affidavit is made and filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors, it is the duty of the board to strike the name of the cor- poration from the assessment-roll. The estate of a corporation which is taxable as personalty, is only that portion of its capital which is not, invested in real estate, though the capital of a corporation embraces the whole of its stock paid in or secured to be paid, whether invested in real or personal property (Utica Cotton Mfg Co. v Supervisors of Oneida, 1 Barb., Ch. 432 [1846]). Under Laws 1857 (Ch. 456, § 3), the capital stock is to be assessed at its actual value irrespective of the nominal par value (Oswego Starch Factory v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y., 449 [1860]). The privilege of commuting is allowed only to corporations which have been in existence a full year before the assessment is made. A bank organized only three months, held liable to be taxed on the full amount of its capital, though its clear income was less than five. per cent (Park Bank v. Wood, 24 N. Y., 93 (1861]). Where it appeared that the capital stock of a ‘corporation was $10,000, its annual income $7,000, annual expenses $2,000 to $5,000, held that an assessment upon $4,000 surplus was proper, (People ex rel. Oswego Canal Co. v. City. of Oswego, 6 ane & C., 673 [1875]). A corporation owning and renting water-power in one district, held properly assessed in another district where its treasurer’s office was LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 97 (People ex ‘rel. Oswego Canal Co. v City of Oswego, 6 Sup. Ct. [T. & C.J, 673 [1875}]). ; The commissioners of taxes may, in the absence of sworn testimony, ascertain the value of the capital stock of a corporation. from, other sources as they do in valuing real estate (People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. 8. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 46 How. Pr., 315; 1 Thomp. & C. 611 [1873]). In estimating the value of the capital stock of a corporation its indebtedness is to be considered, but the Valuation having been fixed, , only the value of the real estate, and not the amount of indebtedness, ‘is to be deducted therefrom (People ex rel. Broadway and C. R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 1 Thomp. & C., 635 [1873]). The actual value of the capital stock of a street railway company, less the real estate owned by it, is the proper basis (Ib.). The rule of taxation as to corporations, when based upon the amount _ of capital paid in, is, after deducting the amount paid out for real estate from the capital, to assess the remaining capital at its actual ‘value, leaving the real estate to be assessed like that of individuals in. the town or ward where it is situated (People ex rel. Citizens’ Gas Light Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 39 N. Y. 81 [1868] ;People ex rel. ‘Am. Linen Thread Co. v. Assessors of Mechanicsville, 6 Lans., 105 (1871]). The indebtedness of a corporation is to be considered in estimating the value of its capital stock (People ex rel. Pacific Mail 8.8. Co. uv. Commissioners of Taxes, 46 How. Pr. 315 ; 1 Thomp. & C., 611 [1873] ). . Upon an application for a reduction on personal property as being without the State, the value of the property must be distinctly shown. The amount of payments on account of it —held, not sufficient (People ex rel. Pacific Mail 8. 8. Co. v. Commissioners of ae 64 N. Y. 541 [1876] ; affirming 5 Hun, 200). An application was made to the assessors on behalf of a doneralion, to have its assessment stricken out, upon affidavit showing that its debts exceeded the value of its personal property. As it did not appear that the capital stock, uninvested in real estate, did not exceed the sum assessed against it — held, that there was no error in the refusal of the assessors to strike out the assessment. (People ex rel. Utica & Black River R. R. Co. v. Shields, 6 Hun, 556 [1876]). An accumulation of surplus profits of a gas-light company, invested in mains and upon which certificates bearing interest had been issued to its stockholders, redeemable in money or in stock —‘*eld, liable to 13 98 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. taxation'as the property of the company, held also that the issue of such certificates did not create an indebtedness to be deducted, since the company had the option to exchange stock for them (People ex rel. Williamsburgh Gaebignt Co. v. Assessors of Brooklyn, 76 N. Y. 202 [1879]). Where a lot of land, held under lease for a term of years which . provided that the lessor should purchase the buildings to be erected thereon or extend the lease, and the buildings thereon were assessed “to the lessee, a bank, at a certain sum, and were valued together — held, that this sum could not be taken as the amount to be deducted from the capital of the bank, since the building only, and not the interest in the land, was real estate of the bank. The: assessed value only of the real estate of a corporation should be deducted from its capital, but not necessarily the cost of it. The deduction cannot be greater than the cost, because no more than that amount was invested, but it may be less (People ex rel. Van Nest v. Commissioners of Taxes, 80 N. Y., 573 [1880]). The refusal of commissioners, in taxing the capital of the bank, to deduct anything for the building erected by it- upon land leased to it— held error, since the bank’s property in the building was taxable as real estate. ia it seems that to entitle a corporation to the deduction of the value of its real estate from that of its capital the real estate must have been paid for out of its capital (Ib.). In assessing the capital of a corporation under Laws 1857, Ch. 456, -§ 3, the actual value of the stock is the basis, and where it is of no value, because of its indebtedness exceeding its assets, it should not be assessed (People ex rel. West Side and Yonkers R’y Co. v. Commis- sioners of Taxes, 31 Hun, 32 [1st Dept., 1883] ). The capital stock of a corporation is properly assessed at its actual: | and not its par value (People ex rel. Panama R. R. Co. v. Commission- ers of Taxes, 64 How. Pr., 405 [1883]). The provisions of 1 R. 8. 415, § 6, as amended by Laws 1853, Ch. 654, are to be regarded as amended by Laws 1857, Ch. 456, so far as is necessary to make them conform to the later statuté. It could not | have been intended by the provisions of Laws 1857, Ch. 456, § 3, that the value of the surplus should be assessed in addition to the value of the capital stock, for the valuation placed upon the, latter should include the former [Fart, J.] (People ex rel. Twenty-third Street R. _R. Company v. Comr’s. of Taxes, 95 N. Y., 554 [1884]). feo? & LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 99 Be { Jt seems that to arrive at the assessed value of real estate of a corpo- ration for deduction from the value of its capital stock, if it, is not situate in the town or ward, ‘though within the State, reference may be had to the proper assessment-rolls. If it is without the State, the -price paid, in the absence of, other evidence, may be taken as the assessable value (Ib:). In the case last cited, Earz, J. says: “We have not overlooked the fact that some of these views are in conflict with those expressed in People ex. rel. Citizens’ Gas-Light Company v..Assessors of Brooklyn (39 N. ¥., 81 [1868]). All. that was there said was not necessary to the decision of the case, and we think the construction we have given to the statutes is more likely to give just results, and to effectuate the or intention of the law-makers.” ’ In assessing the capital stock of a corporation, the assessors are to ascertain the present value thereof, and from this to deduct the vassessed value of the real estate (Laws 1857, Ch. 456, § 3), and the fact that the whole capital was originally invested in real estate does not preclude them from doing this. While the indebtedness of a ‘eorporation is a proper subject for consideration in estimating the value of the capital stock, there is no provision of law which authorizes a deduction from ,the value after the estimate is made (People ex rel. Butchers, etc., Co. v. Asten, 100 N. Y., 597 [1885]). The commissioners of taxes in assessing the capital stock of the relator, a domestic corporation operating a railroad across the Isthmus of Panama, under its charter and a grant of an exclusive right from the government under which it is located, fixed the value of its real estate on the isthmus at the amount paid out therefor, and for the - construction of the road. The relator proved its net income for three ‘years, including the one for which the assessment was made, and ‘claimed that the value of the real estate should be ascertained by ‘deducting the value of the -personalty from the amount which the “average annual net income capitalized would indicate as the value: of its whole property. Held, that as the income of the corporation came not only from the use of its real and personal property, but also from its franchises, which are not realty, the evidence afforded no proper basis upon which to reduce the assessment (People ex rel. Panama R. RB. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 104 N. Y., 240 [1887]). The market value, of the capital stock of an insurance company is only one-of the elements to be considered. Though in estimating the ‘ value of the capital stock of a corporation the real estate is included 100 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. at a sum greater than its appraisal, if the deduction for real estate corresponds to the assessed value for purposes of taxation, the assess- ment is not erroneous (People ex rel. Knickerbocker Fire Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 44 Hun, 410 [1887]); affirmed in the following case: Assessors may resort to any or all tests that they think will be most likely to give them the actual value of the stock, i. ¢., either- “ book value” or market value. The latter is usually, though not always, the best test of the value of the stock of a going concern. The Supreme Court alone, under chapter 269 of Laws of 1880, has power to correct the judgment of commissioners of assessment, when they have taken a wrong test in valuing capital stock for assessment. If a standard of value be taken that is not, in fact, any measure of value, the case is different (People ex rel. Knickerbocker Fire Ins. Co., 107 N. ¥.; 541). Tt seems that the assessment-roll may be made up as follows: In the first column insert the name of the corporation; in ‘the second, the quantity of real estate, in the town or ward; in the third, the assessed. value of the real estate, and in the fourth, the value of the capital © stock after making the exemptions and deductions required (People ex rel. Twenty-third Street R. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Taxes, 95 N. Y., 554 [1884]). In People v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. (26 N. ¥,, 308 [1863] i, it. was held that Laws 1853 (Ch. 463) repealed the requirements of Laws 1851 (Ch. 95, §§ 1, 2), imposing the obligation on foreign life insurance companies to deposit $100,000 in securities with the Comp- troller of this State as security for policy holders, and that after such repeal, even if before, the securities were not to be: regarded as property employed in its business so as to be taxable as such. It is thé duty of assessors to make a deduction for the contingent liability of insurance companies upon outstanding risks, in estimating the actual value of the stock thereof, and a refusal to do this is error reviewable on certiorari (People ex rel. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Fergu-- son, 38 N. Y., 89 [1868]). : The commissioners assessed one-half the amount of unearned pre- miums as surplus earnings, which was the estimate of the company in its sworn statement to the Insurance Department of the amount required _ to dischargeits liability uponits unexpired policies. Heldnoerror, since the statement was competent evidence for the consideration of the com- missioners, and the rule was one récognized by the statutes concerning insurance. Held, also, that the relator was not entitled ‘to notice and a hearing before such determination, without an application on its part LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. 101 se although in its statement it had declared that it had no sur- plus earnings (People ex rel. Manhattan Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioners, of Taxes, 76 N. Y., 64 [1879]). fi A fund of a fire insurance company, contingently liable for’ ‘future liens and expenses of the company, but represented by scrip bearing interest, issued to its policy-holders, to be redeemed as the fund increased — held, subject to taxation as the property of the company (People ex rel. American Fire Ins. Co. v. . Commissioner of Taxes, 28 Hun, 261 [1882]). . The liability of fire insurance companies to poral a part of the pre- miums of unexpired policies when the same are surrendered, does not constitute a debt owing by them so as to justify the deduction of the whole amount of unearned premiums from the value of their taxable. property (People ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., v. ee et al. 91 N. Y., 574 [1883]). Under the act of 1857, the capital stock of corporations less the asi thereof owned by the State, or by literary or charitable institutions, or exemptedfrom taxation by the Revised Statutes, is to be assessed. at its | actual value, whether more or less than its nominal amount, deducting however, from such actual value, the assessed value of its real estate, and in case of real estate outside the State, the actual value thereof, deducting also shares owned by it in taxable or foreign corporations, and also from its surplus or reserved funds, if any, an amount not exceeding ten per cent of its capital (People ex rel. Panama R. BR. Co. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 104 N. Y., 240 [1887]; see, also, Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige, 394 [1834]; Bank Utica v. City Utica, 4 Paige, 401 [1834]; Farmers’ Loan & T.. Co. v. Mayor of N. Y., 7 Hill, 261 [1843]; Utica Mfg. Co. v. Super. visors Oneida, 1. Barb., Ch. 449 [1846]; Albany, ete, R. R. Co. v Osborn, 12 Barb., 223 [1851]; Mfg. Bank of Troy v. Troy, 24 How. P., 256° [1859]; Oswego Starch ‘Fact. v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y., 451 - [1860]; People ex rel. Citizens’ Gas-Light ‘Co. v. Board of Assis. sors of Brooklyn, 39 N. Y., 82 [1868]; People ex rel. B. R. R. v. Barker, 48'N. Y., 79 [1871]; People ex rel. Dunkirk Ry. v. Cassity, 46 N. Y., 52 [1871]; People ex rel. Trowbridge v. Commissioners, 4 Hun, 597; 8..C., 62 N. ¥., 630; People ex rel. U. & B. R. R. Co. v. Shields, 6 Hun, 556 [1876]; People ex rel. Williamsburgh Gas Co. v. siseeRsora of Brooklyn, 76 N. ¥., 203 [1879]). Laws 1857, Ch. 456, Vol. 2, p. 1. “S81. The fourteenth section of the fourth title of the thirteenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Statutes, entitled ‘Regulations ‘concerning the assesment of taxes on incorporated ‘companies, and the 102 LOCAL TAXATION OF CORPORATIONS. commutation or collection thereof, and the ninth and tenth sections of said title as amended by chapter six hundred and fifty-four of the laws of eighteen hundred and fifty-three, are hereby repealed.” Laws 1853, Ch. 654, p. 1240, repeals sections eleven, twelve and thirteen of the same title four.. j Prior to the enactment of Laws 1857, Ch. 456, § 1, the assets of a mutual insurance company were taxable as capital, though derived. from premiums paid and the accumulations thereof (Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 8 Barb. 450, N. ¥. Gen. T., [1850]; People ex rel. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Supervisors of N. Y¥., 16 N. Y., 424 [1857]), 2 B.S, 1037, Pt. L, Ch. XII, Tit. IV.: “§ 15. The amount of taxes assessed on all incorporated companies | liable to taxation, shall be set down by the board of supervisors, in the fifth column of the corrected assessment-roll, and shall form a part of the moneys to be collected by the collector” (Thus amended by Laws 1857, Ch. 456, § 2). . (People ex rel. Gas-Light Co. v. Board of Assrs., 39 N. Y., 84 [1868]); People ex. rel. Buffalo R. R. v. Barker, 48 N. Y., 79 [1871]). . Taxation or TELEGRAPH COMPANIES. L. 1853, Ch. 471, p. 931. An act to amend an act entitled “An act to provide for the incor- poration and regulation of telegraph companies,” passed April 12, 1848. “§3. Every ‘such company owning or using a line of electric tele- graph, partly within, and partly beyond the limits of this State, shall render to the proper officer a true report of the cost to such company of their works within this State; and the stock of such company in , amount equal to such cost, or the dividends thereof, shall be subject to taxation in the same manner, and at the same rate, as the stocks’ ‘or dividends of other companies incorporated by the laws of this State are subject.” aeueusahavnis ob exe ines das See eaten ty 204 of fire and marine insurance companies .....................02.00 0s 216 of racing associations to Comptroller...................... cee eee 218 of every association, corporation and joint stock company must DesMade «ssp eevevegatiann ren ekee cece: Wgyyasls ee esedneeeusbenacs 202 Annual receipts in village, surplus............... 00.0. c eee eee eee eae 279 Annual tax for village cemetery............0.0. 00.00. c cece cee eee 278 Annual wheat rents, assessment of.................. Se Baa aie Calnemra 311 Apparatus, etc., for union free schools................ 00.0 cece eee eee 266 Appeal bond from assessment of collateral inheritance tax............. 235 APPEALS: by turnpike road companies on exemption................0.2.2.0005 56 from acts of school district meeting or trustees .................... 311 from assessment for collateral inheritance tax...... O euateaecyy lsan 235 from assessments in villages............ 0.0... cece cnn ees 275 from board of superviSors............. 02. ccc eee ete eee 156 from collateral inheritance tax, undertaking on.......... ......... 235 from Comptroller’s estimate by corporation........................ 211 from county judge’s order to refund.....................00.00.0205. 348 from highway tax assessment...........0- 0. cece eee cee eee 243 from order directing payment of expense of rebuilding bridge..... 250 from orders, judgments, etc., under L. 1880, ch. 269................ 325 from refusal to issue certiorari....... 00. ccc cee eee 316 from! road (aX, COStHOR Le v2.55 58 edcdekungnatoeaved ges came ake eA we heen 244 from settlement of account against corporation, joint-stock com- pany or association by Comptroller.................. 0. cece eee 214 from settlement of account by Comptroller of corporation failing to make six per cent dividend.......0... 00... cece eee es 202 from supervisors as to equalization ....................... 20.00 2. 154 from tax assessment, notice to commissioners...................... 248 from! tax L0r DTDs) aig once vasa mnaanrnaioarereatn wwe ean T an mtAy 250 payment of tax during pendency of.....................0. 0 eee 350 to board of supervisors by school district..................0....00.. 268 to Court of Appeals, what reviewed on...............0...0.000.. 316, 330 to General Term under certiorari, costs On ..............0.00 200 cece 318 to State assessors from board of supervisors........................ 157 to the Court of Appeals upon mandamus ...,................ 0.2... 339 by school offers oy si 05 s12 oh ey euncdewens wars seaesg essere geneeyy Ba8ea 268 in tax matters, preference of, in court..................0 0.0... eee 325 to Superintendent of Public Instruction............................ 267 APPLICATIONS : by executor to assessors for correction...............0...0.. 00sec eae 164 for certiorari, time POPs 3 65 oa.. eeswosdds 44555558446 bao aG Bec ended 321 for certiorari, to whom to be made......... 6... cece eee eee 321 for correction of assessments in New York City, limit of time. Saves 285 INDEX. 367 APPLICATIONS — (Continued) : PAGE. for correction of assessments in New York City, manner of making, 285 for order of examination of delinquent taxpayer ................... 169 for reduction of assessment, proceedings on..... ............. 131, 313 for reduction of assessments, time of appeal........................ 325 of arrears of road tax....... 0.0... cece cee c ect c cece eee eeeeees 245 of funds raised for village improvements....................00000: 274 of school library moneys..... “Sid Reveewe ate peewee eauayareane nay ts _... 265 of village moneys.......................; feaeusagaeynisense sue Males ben 278 to Court of Common Pleas for payment by assessor................ 167 to commissioners of highways for expenses of rebuilding bridge.. 250 Appliances for road district ..0....... 000000 e eee ees 239 APPOINTMENTS : of appraiser for collateral inheritance tax, when necessary......... 235 of deputy tax receivers...... 66... ce ec tenets ee ees 282 ORME Ww CONESCtOR: ows oeca pie ticetd bS2ees Seene ed anche lad boawenweanwas 178 of new collector, extension of time of..................0. 0c. cece 178 by officers, action to PECVEMG fete see atte, bee eS Oe ret loa aeetoanea 858 of road commissioners ............0 0.0 ccc cece cence eet ee ev eeues 248 of school tax collector, irregularity in ...............0..00.000.00000, 258 OF SCHOOI trustee: oc¢ek ie veuds eveveass keds divce ed eily wnt SidwaGenmens 252 APPORTIONMENTS : of collateral inheritance tax..........0..0 occ cece cece cece ee 233 of expense of rebuilding bridge.... ......... 0.00 lee eee 250 of highway tax by commissioners.......... 0000.00.00. cece cae eeeee 246 of moneys to school district.............0.0.0.00000 cece eee ee een 255 of road tax on non-resident lands.............0...0.0000 0000 e cece 242 of road tax on property of inhabitants .................0........... 242 of school district taxes .....0.0. 0000.0 o cen cece cnc ee eee 259 Of school MONEYS cee sasaw ede ad nuns eeeeeeenee REsdenaeaesatasese 251 of school moneys, when not allowable....................0.00 00000 255 OF SCHOOl TAK ws diceecsinsiee totems ides eccaiad WG wie Pima e ond erahe wn ewes 251, 269, 271 of school tax between towns ........... 66... cece cee e ene tees 259 of school tax, when void........... 0.00. c ccc cece cece e ee ee een cnees 252 of tax according to amount of dividends earned in State.......... 207 Of TakeSancs dockets ecenmaiesecnereesands GHG wAEE TR CANAEU EER Od 39, 169, 303 of tax on altered school district......0.... 0000. c cece cece cece 271 on business of foreign corporations........0 00.0.0... cece eee eee 206 of taxes, do not affect contract for payment of taxes............... 169 of taxes on parcel sold at tax sale.........00..0 cece cece 303 of taxes in New York City......... 00... cece tees 292 of taxes in divided town or ward ............... 00.0.0 cece eens 184 on lands assessed in QroSS........... 62.2 cece ec cee eec nent n ees 256 power of, absolute: cccccisacisesgisasescaueeeegce Oebeadoenecens t... 80 power of, vested in legislature ....................0.0..2.. nk ic aaciantad 41 power of, unlimited... 0.0.0... cece eee eee nen es 29, 30 Appraisal of business of foreign corporations not made............... 206 Appraisal of property for collateral inheritance tax.................... 231 Appraised value of legacy, collateral inheritance tax.................. 238 368 INDEX. APPRAISERS : PAGE, accepting fee, misdemeanor........... 0. cee ccc eee eee aes 236 for collateral inheritance tax.............. 00.0 c cc eee e cece cnet ees 235 for collateral inheritance tax, payment of ....................000 0s 235 returns for collateral inheritance tax to be kept by surrogate...... 237 stores in the city of New York exempt from taxes.................. 289 for collateral inheritance tax, duties of ...............0..0 cee eee ee 235 Appraisement for collateral inheritance tax, appeal from.............. 235 Appraisement of property for collateral inheritance tax............... 235 Aqueduct in New York city........... 0... c cece cece cece nee e eee eees 282 ARREARS : additional interest on in New York city...............cc cece eee ees 291 in excess of State tax, how paid.............. cece cece cece ee eee eee 183 Im. New York City) cis oonasestswas viesn ven cdensepentad deeageeta sneer ees 307 in tax books, limit of time for correction................0 0060000 284 of personal tax, attorney to collect..................0 cece eee ee 308 of personal tax on corporation, manner of recovery...............- 295 of personal taxes, duties of attorney for collection of.............. 295 of personal taxes, proceedings to enforce, dismissed............... 295 OL TOA tax, LEVY 1OPi icy tiss aionies 8 So eg uy owes Raed ox Fang ee eey 245 of road tax, to whom paid.... 2.0... ccc ccc cece eee e ence e es 245 of tax on non-resident lands.......... 00... . cece eee e nen e eee eeees 184 of taxes and water-rents, return of to clerk of arrears.............. 297 of taxes, costs of sale for............... npreleteaietile sf tactild Sites 8 oh od dS 293 of taxes in New York city, levy for......... 0.0... c cee eee eee 293 of taxes on non-resident lands, account of, by county treasurer ... 183 payment of, to Comptroller......... 00... c cece e cette eens 184 statement of, furnished by Comptroller................ 20s cece eens 183 suit for collection of, by attorney............. 0... eee eee eee 295 Arrest of defendant in suit of foreign fire insurance company’s agent, 224 Arrest on execution, when a county charge............ 0... eee eee ees 362 Assay Office, CEXOMPt.sscci esac crass ce ce Ohne the den cceenneE yea aaa ens 47 ASSESSMENTS : ACHONS tOVACATE 5... sciasengian te oae 2 Leas dca wneteatial Que kRamaaeees 315 adjacent towns, lands in ...... 1... cece enn eee eee 240 after decease of OWNEL...... 0.6.6. e c eee n eee e eens seneneeeeeas 130 against occupant instead of owner, when not void................... 345 against non-resident executors... ......... 0. eee eee ee ee eee 286 against railroad company, review Of.............0 0... cece cece ee eee 321 against resident stockholders...................... signi Ggund MES Ri 165 - of school tax, change of district of......... 0.0.0.2 c eee eee ee ees 261 against trustee, guardian, executor, administrator, how made... 122 against wrong owner invalid............. 000... e cece cence cee e eee es 333 alteration of records: Ofss.s census ces esoraneneass soe seed eseese sare ees 286 of annual wheat rents........ isi Bs caste Saat an Ors ici anaenseateereyaeeh & pear bemea 311 amount of, for each county, statement. .......0. 0... cece eee ees 154 application for reduction of, by executors............. 0... eee eee ee .. 316 application of executor for correction of................. cece eee 164 books in New York city, when closed.............. 0... ccc e cence es 285 ASSESSMENTS — (Continued) : PAGB, by board of aldermen, cesar cane syns eee ioe 4 a6 Soa nes Oe cadweeky 281 by ity onsite bonds ya.jc202 aes 554 ed aun aeaesawaeua oolecedyeadekabiewed 59 by commissioner when irregular, liability......................0005 248 by deputy tax commissioners.........0 0... c ccc eee eee eevee eee 282 by trustees of school district, lists of.........0.0. 0. c cece e eee ee eee 255 collected by school trustees, liabilities for .....................02005 344 corrected by court, effect on subsequent assessment..............- 324 correction of, when erroneouS............0.0.0c ee cee eee eee 129, 152, 345 correction of, by aSSeSSOIS ....... 02.6. cece cece teeta dal live 136 correction of, by certiorari...................... sSEe PIN RE EEE SRR EES 312 correction of, by mandaMmus.............. eee cee eee enna eeees 336 OLROM UN WAM EC chee aca teed kaa iota deel awns $a5 be daGaoDeeadeoNS 320 erroneous, no estoppel by payment Of............ 0... cece cece e eee eee 152 exemption from taxation does notembrace..............6.ec cee ees 51 for a specific object, actions on ........ 0.6... c cece cee 343 for city improvements, a lien in New York City .. :................ 295 for collateral inheritance taxes, to be kept by surrogate ........... 237 for collateral inheritance tax, appeal from ..............2.....00055 235 for conducting banking department, statutes on.................4. 218 for deficiency in, road tax ...snsseeiensdeanenneaesyeds¥aeae350005943 242 for funds to purchase tools, etc., for highways .................0005 240 for highways, erroneous .......... 0.0 cece cee cee ee een eee eees 244 for highways, list of persons neglecting to work ................... 244. for property of individuals, manner of making .......... weiss Goes 118 for road labor, who liable to......... 0... cece cece eee e cence ences 240 for road tax, money and stock corporations not liable ............. 246 for road tax, credit for private road work........... Gis RANE 244 TOP SCHOOIS eis csistrnensnacasescndamianaingnierined geese as By dvauteeenscsso arte 141 for school tax, irregularity of ...0.0... cee cece eres 257 for school tax, reduction of .......... 2... c eee cece ee eee tee 257 for village improvements. ........ 0... cc cece cece cee een eee 274 fraudulently conducted, effect of........... 0... cece ccc eee eee 835 grounds for reMissiON Of iccucic. cee sites eset eee wee ed ee eeeeeeawede 288 hearing of aggrieved parties.............. 0. ccc ccc eee ene ee 131 illegal, remedies f0P wiccsisenowessis seeisceeGedes eased oo eeaetane tes: 311 in New YOLrkcity sssscheownnicedsewanuanniise ctigageashin ieeeeee eee 306 in New York city, commissioners of ............... 00... c cece eee 308 in New York city, correction of ............ 2.00. c cece cee ene eee 285 in New York city, increase of, after May first ...................... 285 in New York city, who responsible for................0.0....2.0 005: 285 increase in, taxpayer to be notified.......... 00.0.0 cece eee eee 285 in two counties, action to recover Money .............. cece eee 330 in two towns, interpleader .......... 0.6. c cece cee es 327 increased valuation in............. cece cence eee eee eee e teen en ness 124 (PRE SUIATIEY IMs sti craw scasesacadans detach citilan nip he neceshone ++ 129 irregularly MAG6 .: vide cpacns deeeed es cGannat evade eecennd? titegaane as 324 invalid sale for non-payment of........... 0.000 e eee eee 334 lepahity Of, an:2) Genie ued eveteess petteniday gt, uezeaagee ces cee 311 370 INDEX. ASSESSMENTS — (Continued) : PAGE, liability of village trustees for, when erroneous............0.eeee eee 344 list in New York city, duty of common council regarding.......... 308 list in school district, apportionment of................ 00 cee eee eee 271 list, necessity of Owner’s NAME iN....... eee eee eee 284 not injuries to freehold............... cece eee eee aneearecagomade’ 333 of amount of school tax, how made.............. 0. cece eee eee eens 142 of annexed district, collection of........... 0.0... eee c eee cece ee eee 320 of assets, etc., of foreign fire insurance companies................-. 222 of bank shares in New York City...... 0.0... 0c cece eee eee eee ens 284 of capital of foreign fire insurance company.................6..6005 221 of corporations, deductions from capital........ huge SEG uMadiomee arnt 327 of corporations, joint-stock companies and associations for State purposes, exemption Of............ 02. cece cece eee ee te nese nes 210 of debts due residents ......... 0.0.00. cece cee cee tence eee eee 64, 65 of district school taxeS........... 00 ccc ccc cence eee nee e ee enn 256, 257 of extraordinary expenditures .......... 0... cece eee eee ee eens 275 of goods and chattels of third parties............ 0.0... ce cee eee 166 of highway laborncssancanvorsneaget ids deasoldamenaaannieianades 239, 241 of highway labor by commissioners............. 00. cece eee eee ee ees 242 Off oint lands: sSale Of. secon asec gewonesseeaes Facey Kee maaiads Rees sy 189 of land of fire and marine insurance companies.................... 210 of lands in wrong town, liability for................ 2 cece eee eee 341 of lands sold by the State .......... 00. cece eee 55 of lands taken for public parks ........... 0.0... cece cece eee ee eens 282 of life estates for collateral inheritance tax.................0. eee eee 236 of land for highway tax, how THAD 62 e238 sshwneenrageumean ads aes 242 of NeW Property ssesscogarashss teases ges 8645 Reb eReedadatetss see se 258 of Niagara: park. cssanesqsswesgiccase tesa pie Semee somes 496 24544 317 of non-resident lands for school taxeS............. 0.0 cece eee ee eee ee 261 of New York city funds employed in water works.................. 282 of occupant instead of owner, when not void ..................0005 345 of omitted property, how made................ ccc cece eee teeter eee 124 of partiol a canals, ¢ ccc aisesjeaaaiee eet aces Peels Gneabedonereeu sawed 127 of personal estate, how made .......... 0... cece cece eee eee eens 6 of personal property, etc., of insurance companies................. 216 of personal property before Conveyance......... 6. cece eee eee ee es 165 of personal property, entry in bOOKS.......... 0... e cece eee eee 285 of property for collateral inheritance tax ................... v.. 281, 235 of property in two towns, interpleader on.................000-00 20 ee 332 of personal property in wrong State ............... cece eee cee 329 of personal property, names Of...........0 ccc cece eee eee eee ee 5 of property a judicial act........ 0... cece ce cece eee ees 311 of railroad, certiorari to reVieW........ 0... cece cece eee 323 of railroad for road tax, commutation................ 0. cee eee eee ees 247 of railroad through lands of Indians........... 0... .. ccc cece eens 127 of real estate of railroad, how made............. 00. cece eee eee eee 127 of real estate in New York city, maps of............ eee eee ees 283 of real estate lying in two districts. 0.0.00... .. ccs cece eeee reece eeeee 248 ASSESSMENTS — (Continued) : PAGE, of section of railroad........ 2.0.0. c cece cece ee cee ete ee ete eeees 126 of subdivided tracts........... 0. ccc cccee ccc nnesusceteuetenene cates 126 of tax for extraordinary village expense................. 000000000 ee 273 of taxes in large counties .......... 0... cece cece ee cence nee e eee 140 of tax in separate road district... .. aie rar aorotonmesrenclin cain ans akieialtyaees 248 of taxes must be objected to, or appealed from...................45 350 Of VAN AOS a usc n lar eavvng Piste Ghee adahondie boagenen ean mle shat 272 of village taxes.................0008 Rol fataenins Sa kee Meee 274, 275, 278 omission of a dollar mark in ...... 2.6... cece eee cee eee een eeee 144 on capital stock of corporation............ 6.0. c ccc ce eee eee eens - 215 On exempt property... .. oo. s ccs c ee eee ee wee ie ek fe adeinginw eileen 325 on rents on lands when defective. ........... 0.0 c ccc eee eee nents 152 on tenant for Toad bX. ...000.cacceoaies iam yeds ans ee deh eedasens aes 244 ON WiNAGSS, -ALTOATSs en's eee'es eee Kev 4 CVG eseee OAs vate ne eNoe inks . OB Pay Men tiol cow yev ey asye Amo videuc ease raided va aaa ene amon meena 163 payment of, under judgment for partition, dower or foreclosure.... 163 PlaCe-OF ges i iseieas cae eth s i Pea ey nee een AAnege erence 108 powers of commissioners to reduce and remit........... lana lay 34 x 287 presumption of payment of, after lapse of time .................... 296 roads and bridges, additional for insufficient work................. 239 record of, unchangeable after May first in New York city......... 286 records of property in New York city ............ 0... c ccc ce cence eens 290 redemption of property sold under judgment of sale for partition, dower or foreclosure........... 0.00. eee eect eee ees S bs tephvas GBEEU 163 reduction of, affidavit to obtain, how made.......................-.. 132 reduction of, proceedings on...... Apu thaaeidclamend doe banncuniapoanacara tans ahee ss 313 remedies for illegal..... lene y pe uaen galanin ees lentleeaeariinindn ated gis +». 311 to‘work on highways w.. saci eyeress svee ancien dake Qcasakameonedt +4 240 to work on highways, notice of......... 00.600... cece cece cence 244 valuation in New York city, increase or diminution of............. 285 what is sufficient description of property in........................ 284 when illegal, stricken from roll........0. 00... ee eee eee eee ee eee 322 when irregular, effect of seizure......... 0... cece eee e cence 352 WHEN: GON ose kied scnccead ean ou ddesndaranunwananandiea ade crag eure 296 Whél dd 6s .crese cous aopueeaien waemaneenigioeadian ee eeeees 6 when not breach of covenant against encumbrancers.............. 144 when reviewable in equity............ 0... cee ce cece ee cee eee ences 330 when reviewable by Court of Appeals..................00 sees 324 Saleforin, New York City science aucucgorsanawanatveiaveieew Sea8 297 testimony of assessor in replevin .............0. 0... cc cece eee eee 352 TMS OF EM OF si eiecsiscete who vin cin Rekcncorccnie@tgcomieiiinn Sed Ge Ra AG PROREAA SAYA 334 HS OL MENG ssa craieid aaleuialaias dials eRe NAAR aces ane jewudie dreds 119 unjust, may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals .................. 324 refusal of assessors to receive evidence OD.......... 6. cece eee eee ees 318 regularity of, impeachment Of ............. ccc c cece cece ence eee nee 169 restrained by equity from being enforced ................0 cece ee ee 333 TOVICW Olsoissved outs tsetse sanees: Gee eass Panire gens Neen eek beeen 287 POVISION Ol sf cees nese ed s558 Sos Caen gods Gases eee sees DeneneeseaeEsé 131 372 INDEX. ASSESSMENT-ROLLS : PAGE, addition of tax returned as unpaid to, when void..................- 181 alteration of description of non-resident lands on, in New York city, 291 before delivered to board of aldermen, rights of taxpayers ....... 284 binding on commissioners ........... 0.00 cece ence cence teen en eeeees 246 COTUOTATL LON POtUEN G6 oi ascetics as Meee eae Gea eae eee; Eee ES 311 GOMMISSIONELS OF TAXES: . «oie s deaguswaduovorawies seo ae ea eaee cee ee eeS 282 completion of, omission to give notice Of ............... cee seen ee eee 129 complaint against proportion of tax assessed............6-.2.0 0 eee 317 completion of and delivery to collector ...............6. 0.02 ceca ee 145 Copy Of aii davitiOn. cos 5 4s4 218 of State, return to, by fire and marine insurance companies....... 216 to submit statements of amounts raised by tax..................005 291 subpoena, disobedience of, contempt .............0.. cece ceccuecees 212 tax deed, irregularity in 1.20.0... ieee cece ee cece ccc eueeeeeeueecs 194 time of sale DY...... 0... cece cece eee eee ecees ee ere ee 189 to transmit list of State lands.............. 0. ccc ccc cee cece ee ceeeeues 202 warrant for levy on goods, etc., of corporation, joint-stock com- pany or association, a lien....... 0... 2k cee cee cee cee e en ceeeees 214 when he may set aside cancellation of sale ................ccecueeee 200 Compulsion, what constitutes .. 02. ¢ccssevscccveveiaeweerscceditecveaens 352 Compulsory payment of tax, whatis..............ccecceessencceeeceaees 351 Compulsory payment, what is........... cc ccccccceeeeeseeeceveveesneees * 350 CoMPUTATIONS : of collateral inheritance tax, basis Of ...............0 ec cc eee e cece 231 of tax upon corporation, joint-stock company or association ...... 205 - of tax upon dividends of corporations ..............00008 ceeeeeeeee 206 Conclusiveness of returns to Certiorari........ 0... cece cece cece ees 323 Concurrent equitable remedy does not prevent mandamus ............ 336 Condemnation of lands for public parks................0. 00.0 c cece eee 282 Conditional dismissal of proceedings to enforce personal taxes........ 295 Conditions to allowance of certiorart ....... 2... ccc ccc cence anes 321 Conduct of banking department, statutes on....................0ee eee 218 Confirmation of assessment necessary to lien .................... 0.005. 296 Congressional act, levy under, effect of................ 00. cece ence ne 351 ‘Consideration for sale as evidence .............. eee e cece enn eas 323 Consolidation act....................0085 CVG Gea SeeeR sind. Se debbadedok oahu 281 Consolidation act for school taX.........0...cccccce cece eect cece ee tnees 251 Constables, etc., compensation a county charge................. cee ene 361 Constable executing warrant, action against.................0.0...0000- 345 Constable executing warrant regular on its face protected............. 161 Constitution United States ......... 0. eee n een nee ees 17 Constitution of New York, provisions of.............. 0.000. cece cee 29 Constitutional limitations............. 0. cee cece cee tenn eens 2 CoNSTITUTIONALITY : of collateral inheritance tax .......... cece cece cee eee 229 of laws as to omitted property ......... cece cece e eee cece eee eae 124 Of Jhaws: 1880; Chis 861s: 3446 .0