In re Sleeper
| Decision Date | 20 June 1901 |
| Parties | In re SLEEPER et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Proceedings by the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey to condemn the lands of Lizzie A. Sleeper and another. Motion by the landowners to have the whole award which had been paid into court by the railroad company paid out to them.
In this case the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey took proceedings to acquire title to certain lands belonging to Mrs. Sleeper and her husband, with the result that after an award of commissioners an appeal was taken, and the jury found the value of the lands, with damages, to be $1,850. The railroad company did not make any persons parties to its proceedings except Mr. and Mrs. Sleeper. It, however, became aware that there were certain taxes assessed by the city of Jersey City that were in arrear, and a lien upon the premises; and being advised that the award of commissioners and verdict included the whole value of the lands free of incumbrance, and that the taxes were an incumbrance, paid the money into court, under the eighth section of the act of March 20, 1900 (P. L. p. 79, at page 82). Application was thereupon made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Sleeper to have the whole of said sum of money paid out to them. This motion was resisted by the railroad company, and by the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City. By its answer the municipal corporation sets up taxes amounting, with interest, on the 20th of May, to $263.33, which were a lien upon the premises.
George T. Werts, for Mr. and Mrs. Sleeper.
William A. Barkalow for Central R Co.
John W. Queen, for Jersey City.
PITNEY, V. C. (after stating the facts). Counsel for the railroad company and for the city both insist that there is no difference, for present purposes, between a lien for taxes and a mortgage or judgment lien, and that the amount awarded by commissioners, or by the verdict of a jury on appeal, represents the whole value of the land, without any deduction for liens of any sort. On the other hand, counsel on behalf of the Sleepers claims that the contention of the other side, if acceded to, results in the adoption of a new mode of collecting taxes, not recognized by law, and that the city is confined to its statutory remedy of selling the land to pay the taxes.
I think the latter argument not sound. The question is whether the Central Railroad Company is not, in law, entitled to have all liens upon the lands paid out of this fund. If it had made the city a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey Highway Authority v. J. & F. Holding Co.
...R. Co. of New Jersey, 35 N.J.Eq. 379 (Ch.1882); Gray v. Case, 51 N.J.Eq. 426, 26 A. 805 (Ch.1893), anent mortgagees; In re Sleeper, 62 N.J.Eq. 67, 49 A. 549 (Ch.1901); Borough of Edgewater v. Corn Products Refining Co., 136 N.J.L. 220, 53 A.2d 212 (Sup.Ct.1947), modified 136 N.J.L. 664, 57 ......
-
Cuyahoga County, Ohio v. United States
...983. * * * In any case the lien would undoubtedly follow the fund and could be enforced against the fund * * *.\' Citing In re Sleeper, 62 N.J.Eq. 67, 49 A. 549. "We quote from section 538 of the same "`If a necessary party is omitted, the proceedings will be nugatory as to such party. But ......
-
Brennan v. United States, 142-53.
...N.W. 983. * * * In any case the lien would undoubtedly follow the fund and could be enforced against the fund * * *." Citing In re Sleeper, 62 N.J.Eq. 67, 49 A. 549. We quote from section 538 of the same "If a necessary party is omitted, the proceedings will be nugatory as to such party. Bu......
-
Empress Mfg. Co. v. City of Newark
...Act, 2 Comp. St. 1910, pp. 2182, 2185, all liens on the land, including liens for taxes, are deductible from the award. In re Sleeper, 62 N. J. Eq. 67, 49 A. 549. We are not informed under what statutory authority the condemnation of plaintiff's lands was conducted; but we may assume, for t......