Volume 81 — New York Supreme Court Reports

Appeal by Sarah M. Ryalls, as administratrix of William 11. Ryalls, deceased, who was the executor of Elizabeth Haney, deceased, from the decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Saratoga county, made .and entered in the surrogate’s office of that county on the 19th day of January, 1893, on the judicial settlement of the appellant’s accounts of the proceedings of said William H. Ryalls, as executor.

<p>Assessment for tarnation ■ — review by eertiora/i'i — inequality in the assessment of bank stock — assessment stricken from the roll when not legally amendable.</p> <p>An assessment for taxation which, undertakes to rate bank stock held by one person higher than the same stock held by his neighbors is illegal.</p> <p>On a proceeding by certiorari to review a tax assessment, under chapter 269 of the Laws of 1880, which empowers the court to strike an assessment from the roll, or td correct it, the court will strike out the assessment, and not order it to be corrected, whore, in order to rectify their original mistake, the assessors would be required to do an illegal act.</p> <p>On a proceeding by certiorari to review an assessment by which the relator’s stock in a National bank was rated higher than the same stock held by others, it appeared that in order to make the relator’s assessment conform to (hat of the other taxpayers the assessors would have to rate the relator’s stock below par instead of at its full value, as required by law.</p> <p>Held, that the court could not require the assessors to make stich an unlawful correction, but must strike the relator’s assessment from the roll as illegal.</p>

Appeal by John Martin Daugs and Matilda Daugs, individually, and as executors of Ernest Schauifert, deceased, from a final decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany county, entered in the office of the surrogate of that county on the 20th day of April, 1893, on the judicial settlement of the accounts of Philip F. Wangner, as executor and trustee under the will of Magdalena Schauifert, deceased.

Appeal by tbe defendant, Allen Barber, from a judgment of the Court of Sessions of Franklin county, rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree, and entered in the office of the clerk of that county on the 7th day of June, 1893, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

<p>Order'for examination before trial — defective affidavit.</p> <p>[t is a fatal objection to an order for examination before trial, granted on the application of the plaintiff in a pending action, that the papers on which the order was made failed to set forth either the residence or office address of the plaintiff’s attorney.</p> <p>Such an omission constitutes a failure to comply with the requirement of subdivision 1 of section 872 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the affidavit for such an order shall, if either of the parties to the action has appeared by attorney, set forth the residence or office address of the attorney.</p>

Appeal by Jean Alice Brad way, as executrix, and Samuel O. Mott, as executor, etc., of Eunice A. Roberts, deceased, from that portion of a decree of the surrogate of the county of New York, entered in the office of the clerk of said Surrogate’s Court on the 31st day of July, 1893, which settled and allowed their accounts as executor and executrix, modifying, and confirming as modified, the report of a referee.