Borough of Oradell v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
Decision Date | 21 May 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
Parties | BOROUGH OF ORADELL v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by the Borough of Oradell, a municipal corporation, against the State Board of Tax Appeals, the Bergen County Board of Taxation, and the Hackensack Water Company to review a judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals dismissing the appeal of the Borough of Oradell from a judgment of the County Board of Taxation. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 123 N.J. L. 86, 8 A.2d 100, dismissing the writ of certiorari, the Borough of Oradell appeals.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
George W. Babcock, of Hackensack, for appellant.
Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison, of Hackensack (William J. Morrison, Jr., of Hackensack, of counsel), for respondent Hackensack Water Company.
The State Board of Tax Appeals was invested with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal taken from the judgment of the Bergen County Board of Taxation. The conceded jurisdictional lack did not make certiorari the exclusive remedy.
The question is, after all, one of statutory construction; and we read the statute as clothing the State Board of Tax Appeals with appellate cognizance of a judgment of a county board of taxation coram non judice.
Section 54:2-35 of the Revision of 1937, N.J.S.A. 54:2-35, provides that "Any action or determination of a county board of taxation may be appealed for review to the state board of tax appeals under such rules and regulations as it may from time to time prescribe, and it may review such action and proceedings and give such judgment therein as it may think proper." And section 54:2-39 prescribes that "Any appellant who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the county board of taxation upon his appeal, may appeal from that judgment to the state board of tax appeals by filing a petition of appeal to the board," and so on, "and the state board shall proceed summarily to hear and determine all such appeals and render its judgment thereon as soon as may be."
These provisions are all inclusive. The language does not reveal a purpose to exclude judgments void for want of jurisdiction. The ruling principle is contained in Williamson v. Middlesex Common Pleas, 42 N.J.L. 386. There the point in controversy was whether the Pleas had jurisdiction, under a statute of like purport, to entertain an appeal and try the cause de novo where the justice's court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and Mr. Justice Reed, granting that "the assumption that the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal is dependent, in all respects, upon the fact of the jurisdiction of the court below * * * upon first impression, has an appearance of soundness," declared: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cromwell v. Hillsborough Tp., 8780.
...infringed by acts of taxing authorities. There is an appeal provided to the State Board of Tax Appeals. Borough of Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 1940, 125 N.J.L. 37, 13 A.2d 479. Procedure on certiorari may be invoked to review the Board's decision. Town of Kearny v. State Board of......
-
Duke Power Co. v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals
...to the State Board. Further, if the County Board lacked jurisdiction on the merits so did the State Board. Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 N.J.L. 37, 13 A.2d 479. The State Board's judgment contained a finding that on the tax date, October 1, 1938, the prosecutor possessed the fo......
-
Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. Of Taxation
...Iron Works v. Richardson, 115 N.J.L. 305, 180 A. 192; Degenring v. Kimble, 115 N.J.L. 379, 180 A. 685; Borough of Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 N.J.L. 37, 13 A.2d 479; Licker v. Martin Box Co., 127 N.J.L. 136, 21 A.2d 595. The judgment is affirmed. For affirmance: Justices PARK......
-
Borough of Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc.
...If it lacked such jurisdiction, the Division was likewise without power to do so. Cf. Borough of Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 N.J.L. 37, 40, 13 A.2d 479 (E. & A. 1940); Borough of North Arlington v. Riverview Gardens, 25 N.J.Misc. 466, 55 A.2d 303 (Div. of Tax While N.J.S.A. 5......