
    Matter of the Application of Richard Gilloren, for Correction of Assessments and Taxations, and Refunding of Illegal Assessments, and Taxation Moneys Paid.
    (County Court, Oneida County,
    February, 1896.)
    Taxes — Erroneous-—Jurisdiction of County Court to direct return of. Until application has been made to- the board of supervisors to refund or cause to be refunded. taxes alleged to have been erroneously levied and collected, the County Court has no jurisdiction to maké an order requiring said board'to refund such taxes.
    Tms is an application to compel the board of supervisors of Oneida county to refund to petitioner. certain taxes which have been paid by him upon lands ownéd by him, in said county, and which he claims are exempt from taxation for the reason that they were purchased with pension money.' Through inadvertence' or neglect of the board, the application was granted by default, and the board now asks to have the default opened, and the application heard upon the merits.
    George 0. Carter, for petitioner.
    George'C. Morehouse, opposed.
   Dunmore, J.

>This application is made under section 16, chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892, which provides as follows: “Any such board may correct any manifest clerical or. other error in any assessment or returns made by any one or more town officers to, such board, or which may or shall have properly come before such board for its action, confirmation or review; and cause to be refunded to any person the amount collected from him of any tax illegally or improperly assessed or levied, and upon the order of the County Court it shall refund any such tax.”

The above is a revision of statutes previously existing and has been upon the statute books in substantially the same form for more than twenty-five years. Its construction and application has been the subject of much contention in the courts and the decisions are not entirely harmonious. People ex rel. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster County, 65 N. Y. 300; Matter of Hermance, 71 id. 484; Matter of Catholic Protectory, 77 id. 342; Williams v. Supervisors of Wayne County, 78 id. 561; Matter of Buffalo Mut. Gas-Light Co., 144 id. 228.

The case last cited clearly defines the powers of the board of supervisors, and also that of the County Court, under the section of the statute referred to. ■ On page 233, the rule is stated as follows: • “4. But the legislature anticipated the possibility that the board might neglect or refuse to refund an illegal tax to the person who had paid it. In such cases the board is required, by the statute, to cause it to be refunded upon the order of the county judge, and this is the only power which the statute has conferred upon that officer. * * * The board could have corrected the error before signing the warrant for the collection of the tax; but not having done so, and not having been requested to do so, the power of the board over the matter ended and cannot be called into action again until the tax is paid, and not until an application for the purpose of having it refunded has been made to them can the county judge make any order on the subject.”

That decision is clearly fatal to the application here, for the reason that no application has- been made to the board of supervisors of Oneida county to refund or cause to be refunded the.tax ,in question. Until such application is made this court has no jurisdiction in the premises. The default of the board of supervisors should be opened on. payment of $10 costs, to be offset against costs of said board against petitioner.

The appheation must, therefore, be denied, with costs.

Ordered accordingly.  