Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach Tp., Ocean County
| Decision Date | 31 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 41-45.,s. 41-45. |
| Citation | 164 A. 278 |
| Parties | DANIEL B. FRAZIER CO. v. LONG BEACH TP., OCEAN COUNTY, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceedings by the Daniel B. Frazier Company against the Township of Long Beach in Ocean County and others. From order vacating allocatur given by justice of Supreme Court (161 A. 51, 10 N. J. Misc. 747), prosecutor appeals.
Appeals dismissed.
See, also, 161 A. 53, 677, 10 N. J. Misc. 719, 918.
Joseph H. Carr, of Camden, for appellant.
Howard Ewart, of Toms River, for respondents.
At the threshold of these cases, we are confronted with the right of appellant to have them reviewed in this court. Its lands had been sold for taxes, purchased by the township, and bills had been filed in the Court of Chancery by the township to foreclose the equity of redemption of the owner (see 112 N. J. Eq. 66, 163 A. 442). Answers were filed setting up invalidity of the tax sales, and under chapter 202 of the Laws of 1925 (p. 480 [Comp. St. Supp. § 33—144 et seq]) proceedings were stayed in that court to permit the owner to apply to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari to review the legality of the tax sales.
Application for such writs was made to a justice of the Supreme Court, his allocatur was given, and the writs issued. Thereafter, and before return to the writs had been made, notice was given by counsel for the township of a motion to vacate the allocatur previously allowed. This motion was granted without prejudice to the right of appellant to apply to the Supreme Court (see 161 A. 51, 10 N. J. Misc. 747). From the order granting the motion to vacate the allocatur in each case, these appeals are taken.
Without entering into the questions involved in the sales proceedings, we are of opinion that the appellant is without standing in this court. The power to grant writs of certiorari, with a single exception, resides inherently in the Supreme Court, and is discretionary in character. It is a power that can neither be withdrawn from it by legislative authority nor conferred on other tribunals. Green v. Heritage, 64 N. J. Law, 571, 46 A. 634. That both its allowance and the withdrawal of allocatur for its issue are discretionary is we think demonstrated by the research and reasoning of Justice Minturn in the case of Winegrath v. Fairview, 77 N. J. Law, 448, 72 A. 91; a discretion that cannot be reviewed in this court.
The appeals are dismissed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Switz v. Middletown Tp., Monmouth County
...on error. State v. Wood, 21 N.J.L. 682 (Sup.Ct.1847); State v. French, 24 N.J.L. 736 (E. & A.1853); Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach Township, 110 N.J.L. 221, 164 A. 278 (E. & A.1933); Post v. Anderson, 111 N.J.L. 303, 168 A. 622 (E. & A.1933); Strobel Steel Construction Co. v. Sterner, ......
-
Giordano v. City Comm'n Of City Of Newark
...Wood, 21 N.J.L. 682 (E. & A. 1847); Post v. Anderson, 111 N.J.L. 303, 168 A. 622 (E. & A. 1933); Deniel B. Frazier Co. v. Twp. of Long Beach, etc., 110 N.J.L. 221, 164 A. 278 (E. & A. 1933); Braunstein v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 130 N.J.L. 629, 33 A.2d 888 (E. & A. 1943); Guardian Life Ins. C......
-
Staubach v. Cities Serv. Oil Co.
...by certiorari, but its exercise thereof is purely discretionary. Winegrath v. Fairview, 77 N.J.L. 448, 72 A. 91; Frazier Co. v. Long Beach, 110 N.J.L. 221, 164 A. 278; Post v. Anderson, 111 N.J.L. 303, 168 A. 622; Ford Motor Co. v. Fernandes, 114 N.J.L. 202, 176 A. 152; Wedgest v. Globe Por......
-
Strobel Steel Const. Co. v. Sterner
...of a writ of certiorari and the withdrawal of allocatur are discretionary and cannot be reviewed in this court. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach, 110 N.J.L. 221, 164 A. 278. The appellant grounds its appeal upon an abuse of discretion. The denial of the writ shocks neither reason nor justice, quit......