FISHERIES, GAME AND FORESTS. 453 



real (Clark v. Davenport, 95 N. Y. 482 ; Saunders v. Yonkers, 63 N. Y. 489). There is 

 nothing which shows or tends to show that the act of the Comptroller will be adverse to the 

 plaintiffs. The proceeding to vacate and set aside the cancellation may never be perfected ; it 

 may be abandoned ; the Comptroller may refuse to vacate. The most that can be said is that 

 the Comptroller may act, and that his act may be adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs. 

 Something more than this must be shown. 



The application for injunction pending the action is denied with ten dollars costs, to abide 

 the event. The form of the order to be agreed upon, or in default thereof, to be noticed for 

 settlement before me (at least two days' notice to be given) on the 31 inst. at 10 a.m. 



SUPREME COURT, 

 Fulton County. 



The People of the State of New York, 



vs. 



Russell E. Holmes. 



The contention of defendant that the action cannot be maintained since the act under which 

 it was brought was amended in 1896, and by implication repealed, might have been prior to the 

 statutory construction law, a serious question ; by that law the action is saved and " may be 

 prosecuted to final effect in the same manner as if such provisions had not been repealed." 



The contention that plaintiff's title based upon a tax sale is void because the failure of 

 the Board of Supervisors to " extend the tax " before adjournment, I do not think is sound. 



The supervisors had fully executed their judicial functions when they equalized the property 

 values, determined the claims and fixed the amount to be raised. The rest was simply clerical, 

 and the extension of the tax involved nothing judicial, neither reason nor judgment. If this can 

 be counted an irregularity as has been sometimes held, it was one of the least of the class of 

 irregularities intended to be cured by chapter 448 of the Laws of 1885. 



In People v. Hagadorn, 104 N. Y. 516, the effect of the Curative Law of 1885, or of the 

 power of the Legislature by enactment to cure defects in procedure before sales for taxes, was 

 not discussed or passed upon, hence, is not authority upon the question involved in this action. 

 In Ensign v. Barse, 107 N. Y. 329, the question as to the power of the Legislature and the 

 effect of similar statute was before the Court for decision, and the opinion of Finch, J., con- 

 curred in by all the Court, it seems to me, is decisive of the question here. The principle 

 declared in Ensign v. Barse {supra) was repeated in Terril v. Wheeler, 123 N. Y. 76, and in the 

 opinion of Earl, J., this language is found : 



" The taxes were not invalid for want of jurisdiction to impose them, not because any 

 constitutional rights of the tax payer had been disregarded or violated, but they were 

 invalid because the law had not been strictly pursued in their imposition, and hence there 

 was legislative competency to cure the defects and to co?ifirm them" Clementi v. Jackson, 92 

 N. Y. 591 ; Ensign v. Barse, 107 N. Y. 329; Williams v. City of Albany, 122 N. Y. 154. 



