
    People ex rel. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., etc., App’lt, v. Alfred C. Chapin, Comptroller, etc., Resp’t.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October, 1886.)
    
    Taxation—Sale—Comptroller—Mandamus—Cancelling tax sales. Where the state comptroller has refused an application to cancel the sale of land for taxes upon the ground that the sale was regular, he cannot by mandamus he required to reach a different conclusion.
    Appeal from order of supreme court general term, third department, affirming an order of special term denying a motion for peremptory writ of mandamus to issue to the state comptroller requiring him to cancel sales of certain land for taxes.
    
      The relator is owner of a mortgage upon certain lands situated in the town, of Black Brook, Clinton county. These lands were sold at the tax sale of 1877, for the unpaid taxes for the years 1866 to 1870 inclusive, and a deed for them was afterward given by the comptroller to the state as purchaser. It was again sold at the tax sale of 1881 for the unpaid taxes of 1871 to 1876 inclusive, and was again conveyed to the state when the time to redeem had expired. At this sale, however, it was claimed by the comptroller that the property already belonged to the state by virtue of the sale of 1877, and he rejected the bids made for it by other parties. In 1886, the relator as such mortgagee applied to the comptroller to cancel the sales and conveyances, on the grounds that the tax imposed upon this land in 1869 was based upon an assessment roll verified by the assessors before a notary public, and not before a justice of the peace, as required by Laws 1855, chap. 427, that the oath was not in the exact words of the statute, and because of the refusal of the comptroller to receive bids at the sale of 1881.
    
      D. O'Brien, attorney-general, for resp’t; Mr. Moore, with Frank E. Smith, for app’lt.
    
      
       Affirming 89 Hun, 330.
    
   Danforth, J.

The comptroller acted upon papers presented to him, and refused the application upon the ground that the sales were regular. The matter was for his determination, and we agree with the supreme court in the opinion that he cannot, by mandamus, be required to reach a different conclusion. Howland v. Eldredge, 43 N. Y. 457.

Order affirmed, with costs.

All concur.  