quently none of the cases cited by the trial court apply.

Respondent was never entitled to any notice of the tax as he failed to comply with the law.

“A person

* * who is the owner of * * * * * * an interest in land situated and liable to assessment and taxation in a town in which he * * is not actually a resident may file with the Town Clerk of such Town a notice stating his name, residence and Post office address, a description of the premises sufficient to identify the same and is situated in a * * * * school district the name and number of each such school district. The Town Clerk shall within five days after delivery of the warrants for the collection of taxes in such tax districts furnish to the collectors of the Towns and the collector of each school district in which such real property is situated and such collector's shall within such time apply for a transcript all notices so filed and each of such collectors shall within five (5) days after the receipt of such transcript, mail to each person or corporation filing such notice at the Post Office address stated therein a statement of the amount of taxes due on said property and the times and places at whcih the same may be paid.

Sec. 70 Tax Law.

Concedely no such notice was ever filed by Respondents with the Town Clerk of Duane. It was therefore incumbent upon Respondents to keep track of the time when the taxes were payable, if they didn't desire to let the land be sold for non-payment of taxes. There

is obsolutely no excuse offered why the taxes were not paid for which the lands were sold.

Referring to a letter introduced by Respondents among the tax receipts it is self evident that Respondents elected to let the 1904 tax go unpaid for he had notice of both, who the collector was and when the warrant would be delivered to him (Respondents' Ex. 23 Fol. 321).

Duane, N. Y., Sept. 26, 1904 Mr. A. J. MILBANK,

Dear Sir:-I enclose receipted bill for taxes. Mr. Tucker is the land collector, he is given his warrant about the 15th of December, so you will not have to write him until about that time *

Yours truly,

PRESCOTT E. LADD.

The letter clearly shows that plaintiffs had notice not only when the taxes were due, but to whom to make payment and having offered no excuse why he didn't pay them it will be presumed that it was not an oversight.

Appellant in good faith acquired the lands in question and never was any question raised prior to the commencement of this action although the deeds had been long recorded. There was no such occupancy as the law contemplates requiring notice to be given. In fact the court did not indicate who the occupant of the land was.

The statute says that notice shall be left with a person at the house on the premises sold, but if no one was living there, (making it domicil) as concededly there was not in this case, no notice was necessary and no

jurisdictional defects existed. The judgment should therefore be reversed with costs.

Respectfully submitted,

KELLAS, GENAWAY & KELLAS,

Appellant's Attorneys,
Office & P. O. Address,

Malone, N. Y.

LEROY M. KELLAS,

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an action brought by the respondents, the executors and trustees of the estate of Albert J. Milbank, deceased, against the appellant, the purchaser at tax sales in 1905 and 1910 of certain Adirondack lands, to set aside and cancel the deeds of conveyance of such lands and remove the cloud upon the respondents' title. The Court adjudged that the

deeds and the record thereof in the office of the County Clerk were null and void and a cloud upon the respondents' title; that the deeds should, therefore, be yacated and set aside and the record thereof canceled and discharged. The property is situated in Franklin County and is part of a tract of land purchased by Albert J. Milbank during his lifetime. The opinion of the Trial Judge is reported in 90 Misc., 432.

Facts.

The facts are so inaccurately presented in appellant's brief that we shall set them forth at length, although little can be added to the careful sttatement of the Trial Judge in his opinion.

Albert J. Milbank, the respondents' predecessor in title, a resident of New York City (fol. 262), was the owner of a tract of land, in which is included the lots in question, consisting of some twelve hundred acres, and comprising one compact and contiguous parcel situated in the Towns of Santa Clara and Duane, Franklin County, and more particularly described as follows:

“All that tract or parcel of land being part of McCombs Purchase, the Great Tract One, County of Franklin, described as follows:

In Township fifteen (15), northwest quarter, lot four (4) containing one hundred and nineteen (119) acres, more or less; in Township twelve (12), lot forty-nine (49), the west half, containing two hundred and twenty-five (225) acres, more or less; and lot forty-one (41), the southwest quarter, containing one hundred and forty-four (114) acres, more or less; in Township eleven (11),