From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonogh v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 29, 1950
277 App. Div. 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Summary

In McDonogh this court noted (supra, p 1087) "The fact that the plaintiff for many years paid taxes on these parcels as so described, indicates conclusively that he was neither deceived nor misled."

Summary of this case from Matter of S. Berzal Co., Inc. v. Hyland

Opinion

November 29, 1950.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Columbia County.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Coon, JJ.


Essentially, this is an action to remove clouds on title to two pieces of property formerly owned by the plaintiff, on the grounds that the descriptions of parcels involved both as they appeared on the assessment rolls and on the tax deeds, were incorrect. The descriptions were sufficiently accurate to identify the parcels and hence, the assessments and subsequent deeds were not invalid. (Tax Law, § 55-a.) The fact that the plaintiff for many years paid taxes on these parcels as so described, indicates conclusively that he was neither deceived nor misled. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondent. County of Columbia.


Summaries of

McDonogh v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 29, 1950
277 App. Div. 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

In McDonogh this court noted (supra, p 1087) "The fact that the plaintiff for many years paid taxes on these parcels as so described, indicates conclusively that he was neither deceived nor misled."

Summary of this case from Matter of S. Berzal Co., Inc. v. Hyland

In McDonogh v. Smith (277 App. Div. 1087), it was held that the fact that plaintiff for many years paid taxes on these parcels as so described indicates conclusively that he was neither deceived nor misled.

Summary of this case from Harten v. Kline
Case details for

McDonogh v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:JAMES S. McDONOGH, Appellant, v. WALTER J. SMITH et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 29, 1950

Citations

277 App. Div. 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Citing Cases

Wood v. LaRose

The owner also had no misconception and was under no deception as to the identity of the property. Her…

Snyder v. County of Monroe

The description of property on a tax roll must be sufficient to fairly advise the person assessed that his…