Case ID: ny-st-rep_48/html/0819-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Herrick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of Daniel Hyzer, sole Trustee of School District No. 3 of the Town of Hardenbergh for a writ of mandamus, Resp’t, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Ulster, App’lt. In the Matter of the Application of Sturgis Bulkley, sole Trustee of School District No. 10 of the Town of Hardenbergh, for a writ of mandamus, Resp’t, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Ulster, App’lt. In the Matter of the Application of Colonel Sprague, sole Trustee of School District No. 5 of the Town of Hardenbergh, for a writ of mandamus, Resp’t, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Ulster, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed November 22, 1892.)
    
    Taxes—Presumption op resulabity.
    A peremptory writ of mandamus was issued commanding the payment of a returned school tax to the collector of the school district by the hoard of supervisors, the moving affidavit, which was not disputed, alleged regularity in the tax proceeding, the tax being on forest preserve lands. Upon argument of the appeal, the board claimed that the provisions of the law in regard to assessments on state lands had not been carried out and the tax therefore void. . Reid, that such irregularities, if any, should have been pointed out; the court will not assume that .there are irregularities, but rather that the public officers have done their duty.
    Appeal from orders of special term granting peremptory writs of mandamus, commanding, the board of supervisors to pay the returned school tax óf school districts Hos. 3, 5 and 10 of the town of Hardenbergh, Ulster county, to the-collectors of said districts, by voucher or draft on the county treasurer. Ho affidavits -were filed in opposition to the motions for the. writs, and the facts are undisputed. , . .
    It was argued in opposition to the applications for the writs that so far as the taxes were assessed on state lands they were void; and that the assessment rolls were defective in certain particulars, which rendered the. taxes void. ...
    
      John P. Cloonan, for app’lt; Linson & Van Buren, for resp’ts.
   Herrick, J.

The tax objected to wcas a tax on Forest Preserve lands. Such lands are taxable. Chapter 280, Laws of 1886.

The moving affidavit, which is not disputed, says that such tax was duly approved by the comptroller and forest commissioners.

The proceedings seem to have been regular all through.

If the proceedings were irregular in any respect, such irregularities should be pointed out; it is not the case of attempting to enforce a tax upon lands against a citizen, where it is a lien upon his lands, and- by it his property may be taken from him.

The court will not assume that there are irregularities, but rather that fjhe public officers have done their duty. ■

The orders should be affirmed, with costs.

Mayham, P. J., and Putnam, J., concur.