Hackensack Water Co. v. North Bergen Tp., Hudson County
| Decision Date | 31 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. A--137,A--137 |
| Citation | 73 A.2d 597,8 N.J.Super. 139 |
| Parties | HACKENSACK WATER CO. v. NORTH BERGEN TP., HUDSON COUNTY, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph Keane, Jersey City, argued the cause for the appellant (Samuel William Zerman, Weehawken, of counsel; Milton, McNulty & Augelli, Jersey City, attorneys).
Nicholas S. Schloeder, Union City, argued the cause for the respondent North Bergen Tp.
Before Judges JACOBS, DONGES and BIGELOW.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
BIGELOW, J.A.D.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Division of Tax Appeals assessing at $1,225,000 appellant's personal property in the Township of North Bergen for the year 1947. Only two questions are argued, namely, whether the Division should have permitted the appellant to amend its petition of appeal and whether the evidence justified the valuation of $1,225,000.
The petition of appeal to the Division of Tax Appeals was filed December 9, 1947, and alleges that the appellant Water Company was aggrieved because the assessment was in excess of true value, and it prayed that the assessment be reduced to the true value of the property. In due course, the Division referred the matter to a panel composed of three of its members, to take the proofs. On June 20, 1949, counsel for the appellant moved the panel for leave to amend the petition of appeal so as to add a charge of discrimination against appellant in that other personal property in the Township was either not assessed at all, or was assessed at only about 20 percent of its value; and to pray that the assessment against appellant's property be reduced to 20 percent of true value. Leave was denied.
The appellant relies on Hillsborough Township v. Cromwell, 326 U.S 620, 66 S.Ct. 445, 90 L.Ed. 358 (1946), where the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment is not satisfied by a rule which permits the taxpayer who is discriminated against, to proceed against other individuals for the purpose of having their taxes increased; that his right to equal treatment requires that his assessment be reduced to the same percentage of true value that is imposed on others. See also Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441, 43 S.Ct. 190, 67 L.Ed. 340, 28 A.L.R. 979 (1923). In Jersey City v. Division of Tax Appeals, 5 N.J.Super. 375, 69 A.2d 331 (App.Div. 1949), we said that a taxpayer may raise the question of discrimination and have relief before the County tax board or the Division of Tax Appeals.
It may be doubted whether the panel of three members of the Division to whom was addressed the motion, had authority to give leave to amend. The statute under which they were acting only permits the reference to them of 'the duty of taking testimony in a matter pending before it (the Division), and to report on such matter and the testimony so taken, to the division, but no determination shall be made therein except by the division.' P.L. 1946, c. 161, § 4; R.S. 54:2--18, N.J.S.A. If the panel were without authority, the application to them and their denial of the motion constitute no ground for complaint. But we pass this question by.
P.L. 1946, c. 161, § 11; R.S. 54:2--40.2 N.J.S.A., allows petitions of appeal to the Division of Tax Appeals, to be amended at any time at or before the hearing of the appeal, without notice, and as a matter of course. While the language employed by the legislature is most comprehensive, the amendments that may properly be made are not unrestricted. It is a principle of wide application that an amendment setting up a new cause of action should not be permitted after the time has expired for bringing the suit or other proceeding. Russo v. Wright Aeronautical Corp., 1 N.J. 417, 64 A.2d 71 (1949). In the present matter, the judgment of the County board was rendered November 13, 1947, and time to appeal to the Tax Division expired one month thereafter. P.L. 1946, c. 161, § 8; R.S. 54:2--39, N.J.S.A. The motion for leave to amend was not made until long afterward, June 20, 1949. The original petition of appeal and the proposed amendment alleged very different wrongs; the first, that appellant's property was assessed at too high a figure; the second, that other ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...would 'have the opportunity to prove the fact before one or other of the tax boards.' In Hackensack Water Co. v. Twp. of North Bergen, 8 N.J.Super. 139, 73 A.2d 597, 598 (App.Div.1950), the Appellate Division speaking through the same learned judge in reviewing and approving a denial of lea......
-
Hackensack Water Co. v. North Bergen Tp.
...on the 1947 assessment was concluded in May, 1950 when the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Hackensack Water Company v. Township of North Bergen, 8 N.J.Super. 139, 73 A.2d 597, affirmed a valuation of $1,225,000. The plaintiff still owes a balance of taxes due of $18,356.85, havi......
-
Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...Appeals, 5 N.J.Super. 375, 69 A.2d 331 (App.Div.1949), affirmed 5 N.J. 433, 75 A.2d 865 (1950); Hackensack Water Co. v. Township of North Bergen, 8 N.J.Super. 139, 73 A.2d 597 (App.Div.1950); Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co. v. City of Hoboken, 16 N.J.Super. 543, 85 A.2d 200 (App.Div.1......
-
Hackensack Water Co. v. Township of North Bergen
...54:2-39, N.J.S.A. The motion for leave to amend was not made until long afterward, June 20, 1949." Hackensack Water Co. v. Tp. of North Bergen, 8 N.J.Super. 139, 142, 73 A.2d 597, 599. 3 "It is a principle of wide application that an amendment setting up a new cause of action should not be ......