Case ID: ny-sup-ct_28/html/0579-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Petition of JOSHUA C. SAUNDERS, to Vacate certain Sales for the Non-payment of Assessments.
    
      Application to vacate an assessment sale — when denied., for laches of the petitioner.
    
    Appeal from an order denying an application to vacate certain sales of lands, for non-payment of assessments thereon, on the ground of irregularity.
    The court, at General Term, said: “ The petitioner became the owner of the premises affected by tlie sales to which the petition related, in 1870. This application, in regard to them, was made in /December, 1879, and he had been in possession of them four years, prior to January 2, 1880. The assessments were respectively laid in 1853, 1854 and 1856, and tlie sales for the non-payment of the assessments were in 1860, 1862 and 1863. The purchase off the petitioner, as suggested by the counsel for the respondent, was, therefore, ten, eight and seven years respectively after the sale. Under the circumstances, therefore, which mark this application, tlie suggestions of the counsel for the respondents, namely, that if the petitioner exercised ordinary care in making the purchase he knew of the sales and the liens thereby created, and has not, by any evidence, rebutted the presumption that, for those liens, he was reimbursed or in some way indemnified by his vendors, lias great force. If any allowance were made to him on the purchase of the property in consequence of these liens, either by diminution of the price, which would otherwise be demanded for them, or in any other mode, he would not be a party aggrieved, which is a necessary element in proceedings of this character, the development of which should be exacted when the application is distinguished by the long delay which marks this. We are not furnished' with the reasons why it was denied in the court below, but assume that it was on account of the laches to which reference has been made. The order should, therefore, be affirmed without prejudice to another application, with $10 costs of the appeal, and disbursements.”
    
      Moody B. Smith, for the appellant.
    
      J. A. Beall, for the respondent.
   Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Barrett, J7T.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs, and disbursements.