
    SUPREME COURT.
    In the Matter of the Application of Martin T. McMahon, receiver of taxes, respondent, agt. John W. Jones and Benjamin P. Fairchild, administrators, &c., appellants.
    
      Taxes and assessments — Personal tax—When administrator mdividually liable for a tax imposed upon him in his representative cha/raeter.
    
    In a proceeding by the receiver of taxes to enforce the payment of a tax of $2,620, in the year 1881, on an assessment of $100,000 legally imposed upon an administrator of a deceased person, the administrator set up that the deceased resided and died out of the state, but had some personal effects here when he died ; that he had no notice of any tax upon the lists in this city, supposing the deceased could not be taxed in this state ; that the inventory of the estate, filed in the surrogate’s office in New York county, showed $46,068.81 of assets after payment of debts upon which the tax legally chargeable would be $1,310 :
    
      Held, that the tax having been imposed before the estate had been settled by the surrogate’s decree, it was the duty of the respondent, before making the distribution under it, to ascertain what the liabilities under it were, whether for taxes or otherwise ; that it was too late to question the quantum of tax, and that no case was shown for either legal or equitable interference (Affirming S. O., 67 How., 113)
    
      First Department, General Term, January 1885.
    
      Before Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
    
    Appeal from an order of the special term, committing appellant Fairchild for non-payment of personal taxes, &c.
    
      Orlando L. Stewart, for appellants.
    
      John J. Townsend, Jr., for respondents.
   Davis, P. J.

This case was disposed of at special term in the following well considered opinion of justice Lawrence (quoting opinion), (See 67 How., 113).

Upon the facts shown, the case is a hard one upon the petitioner, but public policy requires that the laws for securing the payment of taxes should be strictly enforced. The administrators in this case held the legal title of the property embraced in the inventory filed by them with the surrogate. For the purposes of taxation their ownership as administrators was complete under our statutes, notwithstanding the fact that the decedent, before and at the time of his death, was a resident of the state of New Jersey. There is much force in the argument of the counsel for the respondents that the power of the court under section 861 of the consolidation act, as amended by chapter 276 of the Laws of 1883, to reduce a tax, is limited to cases in which it is shown that the person taxed is unable to pay. This court is not thereby authorized to go behind the assessment and try its merits as if presented for review by certiorari, and to do .that would be to take upon tiie court the powers and duties conferred by law upon the assessors.

We are therefore of opinion that the application was properly disposed of and the order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.  