462 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF 



granted by Comptroller Wemple on December 31, 1891 — the day on which his term 

 of office expired — and Turner obtained nominal possession of the land. He then 

 made preparation to cut and remox'e the timber on the 7,500 acres included in the 

 tract. But the Forest Commission, through its superintendent, immediately obtained 

 from the courts an injunction restraining Turner from cutting an\- timber or entering 

 on the land until the title was adjudicated. The Forest Commission then applied to 

 Comptroller Wemple's successor, Hon. Frank Campbell, to set aside this action of his 

 predecessor. This application being denied, the Forest Commission sought by a writ 

 of certiorari to compel Coinptroller Campbell to review the proceedings by which the 

 cancellation of the State's title was effected. The Supreme Court held that the Forest 

 Commission had no power or authority to prosecute such a writ. Tlie Forest 

 Commission carried their case to the Court of Appeals, where the decision of the 

 General Term was reversed. This decision of the Court of Appeals has such an 

 important bearing on the power and authority of this Department that we deem it 

 proper and pertinent matter for our official report. W'e accordingly reprint the 

 decision for the information of the Legislature and all others interested: 



The People of the St.\te of New York c.\ rel. The Forest Commission, Appellant, ','. 



Frank Campbell, Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent. No. i. 



The Same v. The Same. No. 2. 



1. Appeal — Review of Discretion. The quashing of writs of certiorari, on the specific 

 ground that the relator had no power or authority to obtain or prosecute them, is not exempt from 

 review on appeal, on the ground that it is an exercise of discretion. 



2. Appeal — Final Order. A final order in a special proceeding, which determines the same, 

 is reviewable in the Court of Appeals. 



3. FoKEST Commission— Continuous Bonv. The forest commission has been a continuous 

 body since its creation under chapter 283 of the Laws of 1885, and proceedings instituted by it may 

 be prosecuted and defended to final effect, the same as if the act of 1885 had not been repealed. 



4. Certiorari — ^2127, Code of Civil Procedure. A writ of certiorari, sued out in the name 

 of the State on the relation of the forest commission, to review a decision canceling the title of the 

 State to lands acquired at a tax sale, is, "by or in behalf of a person aggrieved," within the meaning 

 of section 2127 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 



5. Forest Commission as Relator. The forest commission, as relator in a writ of certiorari 

 sued out in the name of the State, is not required to act in the names of the individual members 

 composing it. 



People ex rel. Forest Com. v. Campbell, 32 Hun, 338, 614, reversed. 



(Argued February i, 1897 ; decided March 2, 1897.) 



Appe.^LS from orders of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, 

 entered January 8, 1895, which quashed writs of certiorari in each of the above-entitled proceedings. 



Proceeding No. I was instituted to review the action of former Comptroller Wemple in canceling 

 the sale of certain lands made to the State in 1877 within the limits of the forest preserve for unpaid 

 taxes. This cancellation was granted upon the ground that certain taxes had been paid before the 

 sale. Application was thereafter made to Comptroller Campbell, the successor of Comptroller 

 Wemple, to set aside this cancellation of the State's title, and the same having been denied, the 

 second proceeding seeks to review that action of the Comptroller. 



At the Genera! Term the respondent moved to quash two writs upon two grounds : 



I. That the relator, The Forest Commission, is not the party aggrieved by the determination 

 sought to be reviewed and is not entitled to sue out the writ. 



