Mayor v. Bd. of Equalization of Taxes of N.J.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1907
• Citation: 74 N.J.L. 753,67 A. 38
• Parties: MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY et al. v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES OF NEW JERSEY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

67 A. 38

74 N.J.L. 753

MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY et al.

v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES OF NEW JERSEY et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 17, 1907.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Gummere, C. J., and Swayze, Gray, and Dill, JJ., dissenting.

Error to Supreme Court

Certiorari by the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City against the board of equalization of taxes of New Jersey and the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. Judgment for defendants (65 Atl. 903), and the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City and others bring error. Reversed.

Merritt Lane, George L. Record, and Robert Carey, for plaintiffs in error. George Holmes, William H. Corbin, and William D. Edwards, for defendants in error

PITNEY, J. This writ of error brings under review a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment of the state board of equalization of taxes rendered January 15, 1907, whereby it was ordered that the board of tax commissioners of Jersey City make a reassessment of all real estate assessed or subject to assessment in that city for the year 1906, according to certain rules prescribed by the state board and included in its judgment. The judgment of the state board followed upon the hearing of a petition or complaint presented to it by the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey on October 10, 1906, wherein it was averred that the assessment of all property in Jersey City for the year 1906, as fixed by the local taxing officers, and as confirmed by the county board of taxation, was unlawful, unequal, and unjust in certain particulars.

Previous to the filing of this petition, the Jersey City tax commissioners had made out their tax duplicates for the year, and these had been revised on September 18th by the county board of taxation as provided by chapter 120 of the Laws of 1906 (P. L. 1906, p. 210), and on October 1st corrections were ordered to be made, and the assessors ordered to enter the valuations in their duplicates. On November 12th the county board of taxation commenced publication in the newspapers of the notice of the hearing of appeals. On November 30th the county board caused the completed duplicates to be certified and delivered to the collector of Jersey City. On the hearing before the state board upon the petition above mentioned, no citation or notice was given to property owners or others, except that the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City, the city board of tax commissioners, and the Hudson county board of taxation were notified to appear, and did appear. The Central Railroad Company also appeared. The state board proceeded to hear the evidence and arguments of the respective parties appearing. The findings and judgment of the state board were as follows: "We do find that the real estate assessed by the board of tax commissioners of Jersey City for the year 1906 was not properly listed as required by law, and was not assessed at its full and fair value as required by law, but was assessed at a rate lower than is consistent with the purpose of securing uniform and true valuation for the purpose of taxation, in the larger part; and that great inequalities of valuations and lack of uniformity exist, so that there is not a uniform and true valuation of such property for the purpose of taxation. This board being unable from the evidence before it to find and determine the true value of such property, and being of the opinion that justice can be done only by ordering a reassessment of such property according to the rules hereinafter established, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the board of tax commissioners of Jersey City make a reassessment of all real estate assessed or subject to assessment by them for the year 1906, according to the rules which this board has herein established, which assessment when made and affirmed by this board shall be the assessment of such property for the year 1906." This judgment was reviewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari, and was thereupon affirmed. The prosecutors in certiorari (now plaintiffs in error) include the municipal authorities and board of tax commissioners of the city, and various landowners whose interests would be affected by the proposed reassessment.

The principal question presented by the present writ of error, and the only one now requiring solution, is whether the state board of equalization, by virtue of section 6, c. 67, of the Laws of 1905 (P. L. 1905, p. 126), has power to make such an order; and, if so, then whether it can exercise this power without notice to the owner of the property that is ordered to be reassessed. The state board of equalization established by the act of 1905, just referred to, is the successor of the former state board of taxation established by an act of March 19, 1891 (P. L. 1891, p. 189; Gen. St. p. 3344, § 286), and the several supplements thereto. In the revised act of 1903 for the assessment and collection of taxes, the organization and powers of this board were provided for by sections 32, etc. Section 35 (P. L. 1903, p. 416) contains the same provisions (save for differences of verbiage not now material) that are contained in section 6 of the act of 1905. In order to fairly appreciate the purpose and scope of the latter section, it should, of course, be read in connection with the context The first two sections of the act of 1905 provide for the organization of the board, and confer upon it the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before It, the power to examine witnesses under oath, and to punish disobedience of its orders as for contempt. Section 3 provides for a complaint to be made to the board by any taxing district or county against any other taxing district or county that is by taxes contributing to the same common cause, and requires the board to cause an investigation of the complaint to be made, and to render assistance in arriving at a fair and equitable adjustment of values of property. If it shall appear that the value of any property in any taxing district is relatively less than the value of any other property contributing by taxation to a common burden, or that assessable property has been omitted from assessment, or that the assessment of any property is greater than the true value thereof, the board is to add to or reduce the assessment; but, before any change is to be made in value, the assessors of the taxing district and the owners of the property are to be notified. Section 4 imposes upon the board the duty of investigating the methods adopted by local assessors and to annually report to the Legislature such recommendations as...