Hackensack Water Co. v. State Bd. of Taxes And Assessment
| Decision Date | 25 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 281.,281. |
| Citation | 139 A. 410 |
| Parties | HACKENSACK WATER CO. v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Original application by the Hackensack Water Company for certiorari to the State Board of Taxes and Assessment and another. On rule to show cause. Rule discharged.
Argued May term, 1927, before TRENCHARD, KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Wright, VanderBurgh & McCarthy, of Hackensack, for prosecutor.
De Turck & West, of Hackensack, for respondents.
This case is before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued directed to the state board of taxes and assessment to certify and send to this court the judgment and proceedings touching and concerning the valuation for the assessment of taxes for the year 1926 of the property of the Hackensack Water Company in the borough of Woodcliffe Lake, in the county of Bergen. It appears from the record that the prosecutor, the Hackensack Water Company, owns a tract of 218 acres in the borough of Woodcliffe Lake which forms a part of a reservoir recently constructed by the company to impound water for distribution. This tract was valued by the local assessor at $140,500. The prosecutor then appealed to the Bergen county board of taxation for a reduction of the assessment. The assessment was affirmed. An appeal was then taken to the state board of taxes and assessment, which affirmed the assessment.
The prosecutor, in its petition of appeal to the state board, claimed that the land should be assessed for $21,800 instead of $140,500. The petition of appeal to the state board further alleged that the assessments on other land and improvements in the borough of Woodcliffe Lake are on a basis of less than 30 per cent. of the true market value thereof; that there is an undue discrimination against the petitioner's property; that this discrimination is illegal, confiscatory, and void; and that the prosecutor is denied the equal protection of the laws in violation of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. No testimony under the rule has been taken. It is stipulated that the testimony taken before the state board shall be used in this proceeding.
The desire of the prosecutor to obtain a writ of certiorari is to ultimately secure a decision from the Court of Errors and Appeals, which may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The prosecutor urges that the case of Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, Neb., 260 U. S. 441, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340, 28 A. L. R. 979, is authority for the position which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...withheld Certiorari in deference to our constitutional and statutory formula of taxation at 'true value' (Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board, 104 N.J.L. 48, 139 A. 410 (Sup.Ct.1927); Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. State Board, 174 A. 359, 360, 12 N.J.Misc. 673 (Sup.Ct.1934)), reemphasizing in th......
-
Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Martin
...Jersey in June, 1916, and affirmed on May 24, 1917, 90 N. J. Law, 701, 702, 101 A. 367, 368. It is true that Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board, 104 N. J. Law, 48, 139 A. 410, was both decided in 1927 four years after the Sioux City Case, and that that decision was expressly called to the ......
-
Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Martin
...do so would violate the Constitution of New Jersey. In other words, we come to the situation stated in Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board of Taxes, 104 N. J. Law, 48, 139 A. 410, 411, as follows: "The position of the prosecutor apparently is that notwithstanding the provision of the New Je......
-
In re New York, S. & WR Co.
...it complains. One cannot claim a deprivation of constitutional rights by ignoring the remedy provided." Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board, 104 N.J.L. 48, 50, 139 A. 410, 411. This opinion had not been cited by counsel and mirabile dictu the learned Circuit Court of Appeals used its first ......