Case ID: ny-st-rep_3/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bookstaver, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of the petition of Annie E. Brown to vacate an assessment.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 20, 1886.)
    
    Assessment—Proceeding to vacate—Ignorance op the fbtioners op no avail.
    Where a party became the owner of real property before the conñrmamation of an assessment, believing- that the same had been laid and paid, it appearing that upon inquiry she might have discovered the fact that it was not: Held, that this lack of knowledge was of no avail; the case is parallel with that of a party purchasing property in ignorance of a mortgage upon record.
    
      E. H. Lacombe, for city; James A. Deering, for petitioner.
   Bookstaver, J.

This case differs only from the matter of Deering, in that the petitioner became the owner of the property assessed in 1885, before the assessment was confirmed, believing, as she alleges in her petition, that the same had been laid and paid long before that time.

This belief, we think, cannot avail her upon this appeal. She does not show that she made any inquiry upon "the subject; and as pointed out in the opinion filed in the Deering matter, if she had done so, she could have discovered that the assessment had not been laid, nor the improvement paid for. Had she taken title to the lots in question, believing that the same were free from all incumbrance, and it had afterwards turned out that a valid mortgage on the same was unsatisfied of record in the register’s office, she could not be heard to claim that, because of her belief, that the lots were free, the lien of the mortgage ought not to be enforced against them.

Nor, if she had taken title to the lots from a man, believing him to be unmarried, when, in fact, he was married, could she, because of her belief, deprive the widow of such a man of her dower.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Allen, J., concurs._