448 



REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF 



On the 18th of May, 1886, Mr. Turner, through his attorney, paid into the State Treasury 

 the sum of $1,306.30 for redemption of the premises from the tax sale of 1881 made for the 

 taxes of the years 1871 to 1876. On December 27, 1887, he paid inco the treasury the sum of 

 $1,124.61 for redemption of the premises from the tax sale of 1885 made for the taxes of 1877, 

 1878, 1879 and for 1853, 1854 and 1855. 



An affidavit of Mr. Turner is presented in which it is stated that after the cancellation of 

 December 30, 1891, he, believing his title perfect, entered upon the land and made preparation 

 for extensive lumbering operations, building a dam across Cold Brook at an expense of $3,500; 

 building sluice-ways and improving the brook to make it available for running logs at an expense 

 of $3,000; building several camps, barns and other buildings for use in lumbering business at 

 an expense of $5,350; building roads and bridges at an expense of $1,500; that these buildings 

 and improvements are practically useless to him except for the purpose of utilizing the timber on 

 said premises, except that the main camp was to some extent used in aid of the lumbering 

 operations on an adjoining tract, Township 27, owned by him; that in June, 1892, after this 

 expense was incurred, an injunction was served upon him on behalf of the State, restraining him 

 from entering on the land. 



On the part of the relator an affidavit of Cyrus P. Whitney, a civil engineer, is presented in 

 which it is in substance stated that he is familiar with the lands in question and with lumbering ; 

 that the improvements mentioned by Turner were made long before December 31, 1891, and for 

 the purpose mainly of lumbering on Turner's adjoining tract and many of the buildings are on 

 that tract; that the cost of the buildings is largely overstated and many of them are now rotted 

 down. It also appears on behalf of the relator that on June 6, 1891, The People of the State 

 recovered judgment against Turner for $2,198.60. On the affirmance of this at General Term 

 a further judgment was recovered against Turner for $72.04, May 18, 1894, and on the 

 affirmance of this by the Court of Appeals a further judgment of $151.75 on February 17, 1898. 

 These judgments are shown to be unpaid. The recovery in the original judgment was for 

 the value of logs taken by the defendant therein from the premises in question about March 1, 

 1887. It is not suggested by the relator that Turner has taken any other timber or had any 

 other use of the property that should be considered on the question now before us. 



The defendant, or rather Turner through the defendant, claims that as condition of the 

 reversal of the determination of the Comptroller, the amount paid by him on December 31, 

 i89t, being the sum of $9,538.21 should be restored to him. Before Turner is in a position to 

 ask this, he should restore to the State all the rights it had under the certificate given to it on the 

 1890 sale, so that there will be no outstanding claim against the State or the property by reason 

 of the transfer of that certificate or any conveyance that may have been given thereunder. 



Such restoration being made Turner then would be in a position to ask that the money that 

 he paid December 31, 1891, be paid back to him upon the reversal of the Comptroller's 

 determination. 



It is also claimed on behalf of Turner that he should be reimbursed for his expenses for 

 improvements as stated in his affidavit. This is on the theory that he made the expenses after 

 December 31, 1891, in the belief that his title was perfect. It is denied that they were made 

 after that date. If made at the time he says he knew that it had been determined in an action 

 at law against him by the State that he had no title and it can hardly be said that under the 

 circumstances appearing in the case, he had a right to suppose that the relator would acquiesce 

 in the action of the Comptroller upon December 30, 1891. Beyond this it is quite apparent 

 from the affidavit of Mr. Turner himself that the improvements described by him were and are of 

 no benefit or use to the relator or the State for the purposes of its Forest Preserve, but, on the 



