Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Luckenbach Terminals, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen

New Jersey Supreme Court


Decided: August 11, 1938.

LUCKENBACH TERMINALS, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR,
v.
THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, AND WILLIAM J. PURDY, COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENTS

On certiorari.

For the prosecutor, Kelsey & Ludwig (Clarence Kelsey).

For the respondents, Nicholas S. Schloeder.

Before Justices Case and Donges.

Case

[120 NJL Page 526]

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CASE, J. This is on the return of the writ which issued in accordance with our findings reported in 118 N.J.L. 348. The major facts are there stated. The error at the tax sale

[120 NJL Page 527]

as found by us was the inclusion of an interest charge $1,000 in excess of that allowed by law. It is not denied that that error exists; indeed, the municipality has, throughout the litigation, admitted it. The municipality now proposes that the court enter a rule whereby the municipality shall confess judgment in certiorari and that the amount of taxes and assessments justly due be determined as shown upon a schedule now submitted by the respondents. The schedule is not clear to us. It contains unexplained variations other than that of the $1,000 tax error from the original schedule. The amount for which the lands were sold was $85,735.39. The deduction fo the interest overcharge of $1,000 would bring the figure down to $84,735.39; and the addition of interest meanwhile accrued would somewhat increase the last mentioned sum. But the total figure now suggested by respondents is $84,092.25. It is obvious from these totals that there are changes other than the $1,000 error in interest. Inasmuch as the prosecutor opposes the procedure thus suggested, we think that, with this confusion, the sale had best be set aside. If there is an error in the calculation of the tax itself as the suggested schedule appears to indicate, that will need to be otherwise corrected because the present writ, by its terms, excludes a review of the assessment of the tax. That question is not before us.

The tax sale will be set aside, without costs.

19380811


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.