Case Name: William H. Lowe, Respondent, v. Ozias R. Sheldon et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1937-11-16
Citations: 276 N.Y. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Lowe, Respondent, v. Ozias R. Sheldon et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 276
Pages: 1–5

Head Matter:
William H. Lowe, Respondent, v. Ozias R. Sheldon et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Argued October 19, 1937;
decided November 16, 1937.
Everett D. Mereness and Milo R. Kniffen for appellants.
Respondent was not entitled to a personal notice of the tax sale or a personal notice to redeem. (Post v. Cowan, 236 App. Div. 26; Sheldon v. Russell, 91 Misc. Rep. 278; Dikeman v. Dikeman, 11 Paige, 484; Hennepin Improvement Co. v. Schuster, 66 Misc. Rep. 634; Mabie v. Fuller, 255 N. Y. 194; Levy v. Newman, 130 N. Y. 11; People v. Moynahan, 148 App. Div. 744; 205 N. Y. 590.) Respondent’s failure to serve notice required by section 139 of Tax Law, prior to amendment, lost his right of redemption. (People v. Moynahan, 148 App. Div. 744; 205 N. Y. 590; Levy v. Newman, 130 N. Y. 11; People v. Carnal, 6 N. Y. 463; Matter of Evergreens, 47 N. Y. 216; Stone v. Flower, 47 N. Y. 566; Amsbry v. Hinds, 48 N. Y. 57; Matter of Miller, 110 N. Y. 216; Walker v. Walker, 155 N. Y. 77; Matter of Andersen, 178 N. Y. 416; Fitzpatrick v. Bolan, 57 N. Y. 433; New York & Oswego Midland R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473; People v. O’Brien, 111 N. Y. 1; McCahill v. Hamilton, 20 Hun, 388; Reinhardt v. Fritzsche, 69 Hun, 565; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477; Salters v. Tobias, 3 Paige, 338; Goillotel v. City of New York, 87 N. Y. 441; Dodin v. Dodin, 16 App. Div. 42; 162 N. Y. 635; Stevenson Brewing Co. v. Eastern Brewing Co., 22 App. Div. 523; 165 N. Y. 634.) The Appellate Division erred in the reversal of the judgment of the trial court. (Mabie v. Fuller, 255 N. Y. 194.)
Sharon J. Mauhs for respondent.
Since plaintiff was never served with the notice required by section 138 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60), as amended, his right to redeem was never cut off. (Curtis v. Whitney, 80 U. S. 68; Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 514; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747; Hamilton Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S. 258; New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336; Diamond Glue v. United States Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611; Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 22; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U. S. 437; Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677; Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398; People ex rel. Pincus v. Adams, 274 N. Y. 447; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9.) No contract obligation will be affected by legislation enacted after a tax sale where the county is the purchaser. (State v. Lawler, 53 N. D. 278; Allen v. Peterson, 38 Wash. 599; Sandys v. Robinson, 26 S. D. 281.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We are in agreement with the Appellate Division in the conclusion which it reached. We are of the opinion, however, that the amendment of section 139 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60), under the facts of this case, effected a mere change of procedure and was, therefore, constitutional even between private parties. (Cf. Curtis v. Whitney, 80 U. S. 68; Conley v. Barton, 260 U. S. 677.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O'Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed, etc.