In an action for the partition of real property and for other relief, order denying motion of the appellant, County of Nassau, to dismiss the supplemental summons and pleading in the nature of a cross complaint, under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that it appears on the face of that pleading and cross complaint that same fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, payable by respondents jointly to the appellant, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs to the appellant, payable by respondents jointly. The cross complaint, in our opinion, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff against the impleaded defendant, County of Nassau. From the allegations of the pleading, read in the light of the law of the State, the relevant tax deed made by the County Treasurer of Nassau County to Bonded Municipal Corporation, the plaintiff, conveyed absolute title in fee to the real estate therein described to the grantee named therein, discharged of all claims on the part of defendants-respondents, trustees for certificate holders of Series or Guarantee No. 171038 of the Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, under a declaration of trust dated June 1, 1936. The doctrine of custodia legis has no application to the situation disclosed herein. As far as the County of Nassau was concerned, it was not required to ask permission of the Supreme Court either to take proceedings for the enforcement of taxes due on the property described in the complaint, or for permission to deliver the tax deed thereof to the plaintiff. ( Vide County of Nassau v. Day, post, p. 738, decided herewith.) Hagarty, Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.