to be assessed, does not invalidate the assessment. In re McLean v. Walburger Horn, 17 N. Y. Supp. 119.

Power of department to add property and names to assessment rolls. So long as the books of annual record of the assessed valuation of real and personal estate of the several boroughs remain open for public inspection, examination and correction, the board of taxes and assessments, after giving at least ten days' prior personal notice to the party in interest, may add to the rolls of assessment of such annual record any real estate, or the name of the owner of any personal estate, and also the assessed valuation of any such real or personal estate that may have been omitted from such rolls on the day of the opening of such books. (Sec. 894a, Charter, added by L. 1906, ch. 207.)

Executor's name may be substituted for deceased owner.It has been held that where the tax commissioners placed the name of a deceased person on the Tax Roll before the second Monday of January, under section 894a of the charter, on discovering the error, and while the books were open for examination and correction, they might correct the same, by substituting the name of the executor, on giving the ten days' notice required by the above section. An executor is an "owner" of the property within the meaning of the Tax Law. People ex rel. Stebbins v. Purdy, 144 App. Div. 361 (1911).

The omission of name of owner of realty deprives city of personal remedy. In New York city it is not essential to the validity of a tax upon land that the name of the owner should be inserted in the assessment list, and the only effect of omitting it, or of inserting the name of one who is not the owner, is to deprive the city of the right to collect the tax from the owner personally or by distress of goods and chattels, &c., and to confine its remedy to the enforcement of its lien. Haight v. Mayor, 99 N. Y. 280 (1885), aff'g 32 Hun, 153 (1884); Man. Life Ins. Co. v. Wells, supra.

Assessment against non-residents.-While the assessment is in form against non-residents personally it is in effect an as

sessment against their property (City of New York v. McLean, 170 N. Y. 384), and it has been held that the insertion of the names in their case in the annual record and roll helped to indicate and describe the property assessed. People ex rel. Dufour v. Wells, 85 App. Div. 440; aff'd 177 N. Y. 586. It would seem that under section 7, Tax Law, the capital of a non-resident, and not the specific property, is sought to be taxed. This appears to be the more likely when it is remembered that under the earlier statute (section 37, Laws 1855) the tax against nonresidents was "on all sums invested in any manner.”

Applications for correction of assessment.- During the time that books shall be open to public inspection as aforesaid application may be made by any person or corporation claiming to be aggrieved by the assessed valuation of real or personal estate to have the same corrected. If such application be made in relation to the assessed valuation of real estate, it must be made in writing, stating the ground of objection thereto. The board of taxes and assessments shall examine into the complaint, as herein provided, and if in their judgment the assessment is erroneous they shall cause the same to be corrected. If such application be made in relation to the assessed valuation of personal estate, the applicant shall be examined under oath by a commissioner of taxes and assessments or by an assistant commissioner or assistant to a commissioner, or by a deputy tax commissioner, as herein provided, who are hereby authorized to administer such oath, and if the assessment as hereinafter provided be determined by the board of taxes and assessment to be erroneous, it shall cause the same to be corrected and fix the amount of such assessment as the board of taxes and assessments may believe to be just, and declare its decision upon and application within the time and in the manner hereinafter provided. But the commissioners of taxes and assessments may during the last fifteen days of the month of November, and during the months of December and January in any year, act upon applications, examine applicants under oath and take other testimony thereon, for the reduction of assessments upon either real or personal property filed in their offices on or before the fifteenth day of November preceding as to real estate, and on or before the thirtieth day of November preceding as to personal estate, and cause the amount of any assessment as corrected by the board of taxes and assessments to be entered upon the assessment rolls for the year for which such correction is made. (Sec. 895, Charter.)

Source: In substance the same as sec. 820, ch. 410, L. 1882 (Consol. Act) [L. 1859, ch. 302, sec. 10], with the exception of change of dates, brought about by ch. 455, L. 1911, and that the examination may be made by an assistant commissioner by ch. 324, L. 1913.

Failure to appear.-Failure to appear on "grievance day" bars relief on a subsequent application for reduction. A person so failing to appear is guilty of laches, which will warrant a refusal to grant him any relief in a subsequent application to reduce such assessment. People ex rel. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Dolan; Same v. Tierney, 126 N. Y. 166.

While failure to appear before assessors on grievance day was not a bar to certiorari proceedings under Chapter 269, Laws 1880 (People ex rel. Buffalo, R. & Pittsburgh R'y Co. v. Duguid et al., 68 Hun, 243), under section 250, Tax Law of 1896, due application to the assessors for correction of the assessment must be alleged in the petition for certiorari before a writ can be obtained. When there was no jurisdiction to assess, no application need be made for cancellation on review day. People ex rel. Powder Co. v. Feitner, 41 App. Div. 544; People ex rel. Edison Co. v. Feitner, 99 App. Div. 274 (1904).

When a company fails to make the statement within the time. required by law the commissioners have the right to assess the stock according to the best information they can procure. People ex rel. Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. Com'rs, 31 Hun, 568; aff'd 99 N. Y. 254.

Corporations applying for a reduction must take the initiative. Under section 895, the commissioners are under no obligation to reduce an assessment on a mere statement that it is excessive, but must have a sworn statement or examination under oath before them, on which they can take action. It is the duty of the corporation applying for a reduction to take the initiative. People ex rel. Rochester Lamp Co. v. Feitner, 65 App. Div. 224 (1901).

May appear by agent.-The tax agent of a railroad may verify a statement before assessors. Assessors who accept it waive objections as to form or definiteness. People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v. Webster, 49 App. Div. 556; People ex rel. W. S. R. R. & N. Y. C. R. R. v. Johnson, 29 App. Div. 75.

Refusal to answer questions.-An erroneous assessment is not justified by the refusal to answer questions by the president of the corporation under this section when it is not shown by the record what questions he refused to answer. People ex rel. Claflin Co. v. Feitner, 58 App. Div. 468.

Date when assessment becomes final.-Under section 895 of the charter (1897) the action of the board of assessment of New York city became final on May 1st, where no application was made for reduction. (November 16th and December 1st under present charter as amended.) When such application is made the action of the board becomes final on the first day of June (now February 1st). People ex rel. Mt. Vernon Consumers' Brewing Co. v. Feitner, 41 App. Div. 496; see, also, People ex rel. Bronx Gas & Elec. Co. v. Barker et al., 22 App. Div. 161; People ex rel. Consol. Steel & Wire Co. v. Feitner, New York Law Journal, Nov. 22, 1898; People ex rel. Standard Rock Co. v. Feitner, L. J. June 3, 1902.

Uncontradicted testimony of value must stand.- Where upon an application to correct an assessment there is no evidence before the assessors on the subject of the value of the real estate assessed, except the affidavits produced by the owner, these, if uncontradicted, must be considered controlling and conclusive. People ex rel. Amer. Linen Thread Co. v. Assessors of Mechanicville, 61 Barb. 273 (1871).

Where on examination before the tax commissioners, a company's statement showed an impaired capital and indebtedness exceeding assets, and where there was no circumstance warrant

ing a disbelief of the statements except that a dividend had shortly previous to the time of making the statement been declared, in the absence of a request by the tax commissioners for further information, it was error on the part of the assessors to disregard these statements. People ex rel. Edison Electric Co. v. Barker, 141 N. Y. 251 (1894). But where a domestic corporation furnishes the tax department with a full statement of its assets and liabilities, notwithstanding the fact that the capital is shown to be unimpaired, the commissioners are bound to make such statement the basis of assessment, in the absence of other evidence. People ex rel. Seidenberg v. Feitner, 41 App. Div. 571 (1899); dist'g Equitable Gas case, 144 N. Y., and citing Edison Gen. Elec. Co. case, supra, and Edison Elec. Illum. Co. case, infra.

Tax commissioners are bound by general statement if accepted. Where the tax commissioners accept a general statement of the value of the taxpayer's property furnished by it for the purpose of assessment, they are bound thereby, if they fail to ask for further information. People ex rel. Edison Elec. Illum. Co. v. Barker, 139 N. Y. 55 (1893); rev'g 68 Hun, 513.

Prior statements and reports may be considered.—In making assessments the commissioners may consider relator's admissions on previous occasions, reports to railroad commissioners and also that dividends have been paid after meeting all fixed charges. People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Barker, 6 App. Div. 356.

Assessors act judicially and the rolls cannot be collaterally attacked. Assessors act judicially and their action has all the force and effect of a judgment, which, while open to review by some direct proceeding prescribed by law, is secure against collateral attack. Swift v. Poughkeepsie, 37 N. Y. 511; Newman v. Supervisors, 45 N. Y. 685; City of New York v. Tucker, 91 App. Div. 217 (1904). Where the assessors have jurisdiction