Middletown Tp. v. Ivins

• Decision Date: 21 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 265.,265.
• Citation: 130 A. 648
• Parties: MIDDLETOWN TP. et al. v. IVINS et al., and six other cases.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 A. 648

MIDDLETOWN TP. et al.

v. IVINS et al., and six other cases.

No. 265.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 21, 1925.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Seven writs of certiorari, respectively, by the Township of Middletown and others, by the Borough of Keansburg and others, by the Borough of Manasquan and others, by the Borough of Highlands and others, by the Township of Neptune and others, by the Borough of Bradley Beach and others, and by the City of Asbury Park and others, against Albert L. Ivins and others, to bring up for review proceedings of the Monmouth County Tax Board increasing valuation of properties made by assessors. Proceedings brought up with each writ affirmed.

Argued May term, 1925, before TRENCHARD, KATZENBACH, and LLOYD, JJ.

McCarter & English, of Newark (Conover English, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutors.

Edward L. Katzenbach, Atty. Gen., and Harry R. Coulomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

TRENCHARD, J. The writs in these seven cases bring up for review proceedings of the Monmouth county tax board, whereby the valuations of properties made by the assessors, in the respective municipalities named, were increased by the county board. The prosecutors in each case are the municipality and individual taxpayers.

The first reason assigned for setting aside such proceedings is that:

"The entire proceedings for increase in the 1925 assessments were predicated and founded on a table of percentages arrived at by the field secretary of the state board of taxes and assessments, which percentages were arrived at, not by the viewing or inspection of the properties or other investigation, but by the mere clerical method of examining the records in the county clerk's office and comparing the assumed purchase price, as judged by the stamp on the deed, with the valuation as appears on the books of the assessor for the year 1924, as of October 1, 1923."

We think that this reason is ill founded in point of fact. It is true that the county board of taxation was informed by the state board of taxes and assessments that the assessments in certain districts in Monmouth county were far below the true value of the property, and the county board was instructed to notify the assessors in the various districts to increase the assessments, and that, in compliance with this request, the county board notified the assessors to increase the total assessments in their respective districts by certain specific amounts, and also furnished the respective assessors with copies of the result of the investigation made by the field secretary of the state board. But these matters do not affect the legality of the subsequent action of the county board in increasing the assessed valuations of the properties in question. The validity of the action of the county board in increasing the assessed values in these particular cases depends entirely upon whether or not these proceedings are in accordance with section 507 of the Tax Act of 1918 (P. L. p. 866), and we think they were, as we shall hereafter more fully point out. By section 2 of chapter 120 of the Laws of 1906 (P. L. p. 210) which act is a supplement to the Tax Act of 1903 and provides for the establishment of county boards of taxation, it is provided that:

"The duty of said boards shall be to secure the taxation of all property in the various counties of this state at its true value, in order that all property, except such as shall be exempt by law, shall bear its full, equal and just share of taxes."

In the performance of this duty, the county board was not only justified but obliged to direct the attention of the respective assessors to the fact that property was not being assessed at its true value, and it makes no difference where this information came from, or how it was obtained. It might have come from an individual taxpayer; it might have come from the state board of taxation; or it might have been, as it was in all of these cases, partly the result of the information communicated to them by the state board, at whose request they acted, and partly, as appears from the testimony, the result of their own knowledge and information concerning the failure of the assessors in the respective taxing districts to properly assess real and personal property.

The prosecutors' second reason is that:

"Section 507 of the General Tax Act provides that the county board shall have power to investigate and after investigation to revise, correct, and equalize the assessed value of all property in the respective taxing districts. The said tax board ordered its increased assessments throughout the county without having investigated as required by the act."

This point likewise is not well founded in point of fact.

Section 501 of the Tax Act of 1918 (P. L. p. 862) provides that the assessor shall begin the work of making assessments upon real and personal property upon the 1st day of October in each year, and shall complete the same by the 10th day of January following, on which date he shall attend before the county board of taxation and file with the board his complete assessment list, and a true copy thereof, to be called the assessor's duplicate, properly made up and legibly written in ink, to be by said board examined, revised, and corrected, as in the act provided.

Section 502 provides that the assessor, before filing the complete assessment list and duplicate, shall give public notice by advertisement in at least one newspaper circulating within his taxing district of a time and place when and where the assessment list may be inspected by any taxpayer for the purpose of enabling such taxpayer to ascertain what assessments have been made against him or his property and to confer informally with the assessor as to the correctness of the assessments, etc.

Section 503 requir...