City of Newark v. Blanchard Lumber Co.

• Citation: 21 N.J.Misc. 12,29 A.2d 388
• Parties: CITY OF NEWARK v. BLANCHARD LUMBER CO.
• Decision Date: 22 December 1942
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

29 A.2d 388

21 N.J.Misc. 12

CITY OF NEWARK

v. BLANCHARD LUMBER CO.

New Jersey State Board of Tax Appeals.

Dec. 22, 1942.

Syllabus by the Court.

Goods stored in a public warehouse for hire are exempt from taxation under R.S. § 54:4-3.20, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.20, even though the bailor keeps its own custodian in the warehouse to supervise the receipt, handling and shipment of goods on the premises.

Proceeding in the matter of the application by Blanchard Lumber Company for exemption from taxation of certain personal property in the City of Newark for the year 1941. From an order of the County Board of Taxation cancelling a personal property assessment levied by city, city appeals.

Affirmed.

Raymond Schroeder, and Vincent J. Casale, both of Newark, for petitioner.

Samuel S. Ferster, of Newark, for respondent.

WAESCHE, President.

The Essex County Board of Taxation cancelled a personal property assessment in the sum of $15,000, levied by the City of Newark against the respondent, for the year 1941. The city brings this appeal to restore the assessment. The respondent justifies the exemption upon the basis of R.S. § 54:4-3.20, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.20, providing that personal property stored in a warehouse of any person, copartnership or corporation engaged in the business of storing goods for hire, shall be exempt. Respondent owns no property in the petitioner taxing district other than the lumber which it stores at the premises of Newark Tidewater Terminal. The latter, so far as the testimony before us discloses, is a public warehouse for hire, storing varied products for other bailors as well as lumber for respondent.

The city seeks to derogate from the bona fides of the warehouseman-bailee relationship here established by showing that respondent exercises custody by its own employee of the lumber stored on the warehouse premises, that the warehouse company does not check the receipt or shipment of the merchandise, and that it issues no warehouse receipts therefor. It has been heretofore settled, however, that circumstances of this nature do not defeat the applicability of the statute. Halligan & McClellan, Inc., v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals, Sup.1939, 122 N.J.L. 551, 6 A.2d 668. All that matters is that the bailor pay a charge for the hire and that the bailee be a person or corporation engaged in the business of storing goods for hire. These facts are plainly apparent here. The exemption act is constitutional. Schwartz v. Essex County Board of Taxation, ...