Case ID: ny-st-rep_1/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People ex rel. Andrews v. Jackson, as registrar, etc., of Brooklyn.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed July 23, 1886.)
    
    Taxes and assessments—Brooklyn city charter—Sales for taxes WHEN TO BE CANCELLED, UNDER LAWS 1885, CHAPTER 405.
    Under chapter 405, of Laws of 1885, the court will compel the Registrar, by mandamus, to cancel all sales made eight years or more before the the passage of said act, on which leases have not been delivered or demanded within six months after its passage.
    
      Almet F. Jenlcs, for appellant, Jackson.
    
      John Andrews, for respondent, in person.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the special term, directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the registrar of arrears of taxes and assessments of the city of Brooklyn to cancel certain sales for taxes and assessments. The order was made in obedience to that portion of chapter 405 of the Laws of 1885, which provides that after the expiration of six months from the passage of that act it shall be the duty of the registrar of arrears of taxes and assessments of the city of Brooklyn to cancel in his office all sales made more than eight years prior to the passage of that act, upon which no lease shall have been given, and no action and notice thereof filed within the period limited therefor, and thereupon the hen of all such certificates of sale shall cease ■and determine. The undisputed facts on which the order appealed from was made brought the case presented within the operation of that law and the questions involved in this ■appeal are the same as those considered and decided in the 'cases of Wheeler v. Jackson and Macfarlane v. Jackson at the present term, which immediately precede this. In those cases we have sustained the statute as a valid exercise of legislative power, and our reasons need not be repeated here.

The order should be affirmed with costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Cullen, J., concur.