44^ 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF 



UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, 

 Northern District of New York. 



The Saranac Land and Timber Company, 



vs. 



James A. Roberts, as Comptroller, etc. 



At Law. Tried by the Court. For decision on demurrer, see 68 Fed. Rep., 521. 



Frank E. Smith and Weeds, Smith and Conway for the plaintiff. 



T. E, Hancock, G. D. B. Hasbrouck, E. H. Leggett and John H. Burke, for the 

 defendant. 



Coxe, J. : I am of the opinion that this cause must be decided in favor of the defendant 

 upon the authority of People v. Turner, 145 N. Y. 451, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, October 1 8, 1897. By these decisions the constitutionality of chapter 448 of 

 the laws of New York of 1885 is affirmed and its validity, as a curative act and as a short statute 

 of limitations, is fully recognized. The defects involved in the Turner case were similar to, and, 

 in some instances, identical with those relied on by the plaintiff in the case at bar. 



Assuming these defects to be proved, they were irregularities wJiich w<re cured by the act of 

 1885. The plaintiff has failed to show either the payment of the taxes or that they were levied 

 without legal right. In other words, it has failed to shozo jurisdictional errors such as would 

 render the assessment proceedings void and which the legislature had no power to remedy. 



The court cannot adopt the view of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in his ingenious 

 effort to prove that the constitutionality of the act of 1885 is still an open question. His 

 argument is sufficiently answered by the plain and unequivocal language of the Supreme Court, 

 as follows : 



" It was argued in behalf of the plaintiff-in-error that the statute was unconstitutional, 

 because it did not allow him any opportunity to assert his rights, even within six months after 

 its passage. But the statute did not take away any right of action which he had before its 

 passage, but merely limited the time within which he might assert such a right. Within the 

 six months, he had every remedy which he would have had before the passage of the statute. 

 If he had no remedy before, the statute took none away. From the judgments of the Court of 

 Appeals in the case at bar, and in the subsequent case of People vs. Roberts, 151 N. Y. 540, 

 there would appear to have been some difference of opinion in that court upon the question 

 whether his proper remedy was by direct application to the Comptroller to cancel the sale, or 

 by action of ejectment against the Comptroller or the Forest Commissioners. But as that court 

 has uniformly held that he had a remedy, it is not for us to determine what that remedy was 

 under the local constitution and laws." 



The plaintiff has failed to prove that it "is seized in fee simple and entitled to the pos- 

 session " of the lands in dispute. 



The complaint is dismissed with costs. 



Note. As the decision is based solely upon the main issue — the failure of the plaintiff to 

 establish the invalidity of the sales for the non-payment of taxes — it would seem that all that 

 is necessary is a finding of fact and a conclusion of law based upon the proof in this particular. 

 Rulings upon each of the numerous requests presented, many of which have no relevancy to 



