
    The People ex rel. Mansfield Compton, App’lt, v. Elbert Hegeman, County Treasurer, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 11, 1891.)
    
    Taxes—Redemption—Lease —Mandamus.
    Where land is bought in by the town and after the time to redeem has expired one has succeeded to all the rights of the original owner pays the full amount of the tax, interest, costs and charges to the county treasurer, who receives the same in full payment and discharge of the tax, and marks the premises redeemed, the person making such payment is not entitled to a lease of the premises from the county treasurer for the term for which they were sold, under Laws 1878, chap. 226, § 18.
    Appeal from an order of special term, Queens county, denying a motion' for a mandamus against respondent, as county treasurer of Queens county, to compel him to execute and deliver to relator a lease of certain premises sold for unpaid taxes. Relator claimed to be entitled to such lease under Laws 1878, chapter 226.
    
      Mansfield Compton, for app’lt; A. N. Weller, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

—This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus which th.e relator desires against the county treasurer of Queens county to compel him to execute and deliver a lease of certain premises sold for unpaid taxes.

The land in question was assessed to one Hegeman in the year 1885, and he was then the owner thereof, but the taxes were not paid. On the 7th day of June, 1887, the land was sold by the county treasurer for those" taxes, and was struck off to the town of Hempstead as the purchaser, the same being in that town.

On the 11th day of February, 1889, the relator who had succeeded to all the rights of the original owner paid the full amount of the tax, interest, costs and charges to the county treasurer, who received the same in full payment and discharge of such tax, and marked the premises upon his books as redeemed.

No forfeiture was claimed, and there is now nothing upon the records to support or justify a lease for the premises, and the issuance of a lease would falsify the record and be an idle and useless ceremony.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.', concur.  