Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
| Decision Date | 11 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 204.,204. |
| Parties | DUKE POWER CO. v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding by the City of Newark, wherein the city filed a petition with the Essex County Board of Taxation alleging that personal property of the Duke Power Company had been wholly omitted from the tax return filed by the taxing district of the City of Newark for the year 1937. For review of a judgment of the County Board of Taxation denying a motion by the Duke Power Company to dismiss the complaint, the Duke Power Company brings certiorari.
Judgment reversed.
Argued May term, 1939, before PARKER, BODINE, and PERSKIE, JJ.
Pitney, Hardin & Skinner, Shelton Pitney, and William J. Brennan, Jr., all of Newark, for prosecutor.
James F. X. O'Brien, Vincent J. Casale, and Joseph A. Ward, all of Newark, for defendants.
The writ brings up for review a judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation entered January 20, 1939, denying prosecutor's motion to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter and for other reasons, the complaint and petition of the city of Newark and the proceedings had thereunder purporting to be pursuant to Revised Statutes, 54:3-20, N.J.S.A. 54:3-20.
The petition referred to was filed by the city of Newark with the Essex County Board of Taxation November 30, 1938. The complaint and petition alleged that on October 1, 1936, the prosecutor was the owner of personal property situated in the taxing district of the city of Newark to the value of $15,000,000, which had been wholly omitted from the tax return filed by the taxing district of the city of Newark for the year 1937, and prayed that the Essex County Board of Taxation pursuant to the provisions of Revised Statutes, 54:3-20 add to said 1937 tax return an assessment of $15,000,000 against the prosecutor's personal property.
Prosecutor contends that on the assumption that R.S. 54:3-20 is properly included in the Revised Statutes the Essex County Board of Taxation, on prosecutor's motion, should have dismissed the proceedings because the record does not show on its face facts required by the statute to establish jurisdiction in that (a) the complaint of the city of Newark does not specify the property allegedly omitted in the assessment, (b) the notice of hearing dated December 8, 1938, was served December 9, 1938, and the proceeding was therefore not brought as required by said statute, within one year from the date when real estate 'taxes for the year 1937 became a lien.
Prosecutor further contends that R.S. 54:3-20 is not in force and effect in that it purports to be a revision of said section 28 of chapter 208 of the Laws of 1903, that said section 28 had been repealed by P.L.1918, chapter 236, and sections 507, N.J.S.A. 54:4-46-48, and section 801 thereof, and, therefore, its inclusion by the Revision Commissioners was not authorized by P.L.1925, chapter 73, page 244, the act providing for the revision and defining the powers of the Commission, since said act was not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke Power Co. v. Hillsborough Tp.
...the ground that there was a failure properly to specify the property referred to, under the rule in Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, Sup. 1937, 122 N.J.L. 589, 7 A.2d 409, affirmed Err. & App.1940, 124 N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21. Upon appeal by the petitioner as to the determina......
-
Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts, Inc., A--111
...or in detail, to point out, to particularize, or to designate by words one thing from another. Cf. Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 122 N.J.L. 589, 7 A.2d 409 (Sup.Ct.1939), aff'd, 124 N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21 (E. & A.1940); Brazil v. Dupree, 197 Or. 581, 250 P.2d 89, 254 P.2d......
-
Duke Power Co. v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals
...of the value of intangibles was determined, and no proceeding in a judicial manner as required by law. Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 122 N.J.L. 589, 7 A.2d 409, affirmed 124 N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21; followed in Porto Rican, etc. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 122 N.J.L......
-
Borough of Bogota v. Brewster Equipment Co.
...'shall specify the property alleged to have been omitted and the particular year of the assessment.' Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 122 N.J.L. 589, 590--591. 7 A.2d 409 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed Per curiam 124 N.J.L. 41, 11 A.2d 21 (E. & A. 1940); Green v. Passaic County Bo......