
    The People ex rel. John L. Lawrence, App’lt, v. Edward P. Barker et al., Com’rs, Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed February 18, 1892.)
    
    Taxes—.Personal—Business.
    A person who has no place oí business, sells real estate belonging to the estate of his father, of which he is executor, when he has an opportunity, and is a director of a corporation and attends meetings of the board, does no business within the meaning of the statute.
    Appeal from order reducing and confirming taxation of personal estate.
    The facts appear in the opinion of the special term as follows:
    Andrews, J.—Upon his examination before the tax commissioners, .on February 7, 1891, the relator stated as follows: “ I live in Hew York city from December till May, and from May till December in Lawrence, Long Island.” In his sworn statement, made before one of the tax commissioners on February 18, 1891, he said- •“ In 1890 I came to New York city to live; on the 28th -day of November, 1890. I expect to leave New York city on the 1st day of March, 1891.” It appears from these statements, .and the testimony taken in this proceeding, that the relator had ■two residences, one in New York city and the other at Hempstead, Long Island. He was actually residing in New York city on the second Monday of January, 1891, and was lawfully assessed there, ■unless his principal business was transacted at Hempstead. According to the evidence, the relator does not transact much business anywhere. He has no office at Hempstead and does not transact any business there regularly and continuously. If any .one comes to his house there, and wishes to buy some of the land belonging to his own or his deceased father’s estate, he does all he •can to sell it; but he does not go around trying to get customers. On the other hand, the securities, which he holds as executor, are kept in New York city; his bank account is kept in the Bank of America, in that city, and he is a director in the National Meter Company and attends meetings of that company, during the -winter, in said city. He apparently transacts more business in New York than he does at Hempstead, and the writ must be dismissed, with costs.
    
      Franldin B. Lord, for app’lt; Geo. S. Coleman, for resp’ts.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

We think that the case of Newbold T. Lawrence decided herewith disposed .of the case at bar. The appellant does no business within the meaning of the statute.

The order should be reversed and the assessment vacated, without costs.

O’Brien and Patterson, JJ., concur.  