People v. Albany C. P.

7 Wend. 485
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 9, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 7 Wend. 485 (People v. Albany C. P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Albany C. P., 7 Wend. 485 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, C. J.

The revised statutes provide “ that no replevin shall lie for any property taken by virtue of any warrant for the collection of any tax, assessment or fine, in pursuance of any statute of this state.” 2 R. S. 522, § 4.

The common pleas supposed that they had a right upon the motion before them to Inquire into the regularity of the proceedings of the court martial, which I apprehend is a mistake. If it appears upon the face of the warrant in the pos[486]*486session of the officer, that he is authorised to collect any tax, assessment or fine, replevin is not the proper remedy to correct his mistakes or trespasses. The warrant, upon the face of it, authorised the officer-to take the property of Hammond ; it refers to, and purports to be in pursuance of a statute of this state. The officer took property belonging to the society, of which Hammond was a member; whether he had a right to take it, is not to be enquired into on this motion, nor in this action. The legislature have thought proper to say that replevin shall not be brought in such a case; any other appro- , priate remedy may be resorted to. The same provision is found in the revised laws of 1813, 2 R. L. 95, § 12; and also in the revision of 1801, 2 Kent & Rad. 102, § 12. The object of the legislature was no doubt to prevent delay in collecting taxes, assessments and fines ;' and if any error or irregularity occurs in the proceeding, the party complaining must adopt some other form of action.

A peremptory mandamus is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paddock v. Guyder
8 N.Y.S. 905 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Adams v. Davis
9 N.E. 162 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Power v. Kindschi
17 N.W. 689 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1883)
Delaware R. v. Prettyman
7 F. Cas. 408 (Circuit Court of Delaware, 1872)
Treat v. Staples
24 F. Cas. 161 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1870)
Pullan v. Kinsinger
20 F. Cas. 44 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1870)
LeRoy v. East Saginaw City Railway
18 Mich. 233 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1869)
Hudler v. . Golden
36 N.Y. 446 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
O'Reilly v. Good
18 Abb. Pr. 106 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Wilson v. Mayor of New-York
1 Abb. Pr. 4 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1854)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Wend. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-albany-c-p-nysupct-1832.