
    The People, ex rel. George J. Gould et al., as Executors, App’lts, v. Edward P. Barker et al., as Commissioners, etc., Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed November 15, 1895.)
    
    Taxes—Assessment against executoe.
    An assessment against the executor of an estate, before the probate of the will, is valid.
    
      Certiorari to review the action of the commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York, in assessing personal-property of decedent’s estate for the year 1893.
    The proceeding was brought pursuant to Laws 1880, ch. 269,. to review an assessment of personal property made against George-J. Gould, Edwin Gould, Helen M. Gould, and Howard Gould, as executors and trustees under the will of Jay Gould, deceased, for the year 1893, in the sum of $10,000,000. The petition upon which the writ of certiorari was granted avers that the assessment, was illegal and void for three reasons: First, that at the time the assessment was made, to wit, on the second Monday of January, 1893, being the 9th day of that month, the will of decedent had not been admitted to probate, nor had letters testamentary been granted; second, that at the time when said assessment was made, relators had not, in’ contemplation of law, in their possession or under their control as executors or trustees, or as both,any personal estate of or formerly belonging to the said Jay Gould; third, that, at the time when the assessment was made, neither the relators nor any of them had actually or in fact in their possession or under their control any personal estate formerly belonging to the late Jay Gould; nor did they or any of them attempt to take the same into their possession or exercise or attempt to exercise any control over or in respect thereto, except as stated in the ■statement made by George J. Gould to the tax commissioners on the 22d day of May, 1893.
    
      Dillon & Hubbard, for app’lts; Jas. M. Ward, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

Upon the statute, as construed in the case of People v. Commissioners of Taxes, etc., 31 Hun, 235, in which we concur, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.  