N.J. Zinc Co. v. Sussex County Bd. of Equalization of Taxes

• Decision Date: 09 November 1903
• Citation: 70 N.J.L. 186,56 A. 138
• Parties: NEW JERSEY ZINC CO. v. SUSSEX COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

56 A. 138

70 N.J.L. 186

NEW JERSEY ZINC CO.

v. SUSSEX COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 9, 1903.

Certiorari to review a tax assessment by the New Jersey Zinc Company against the Sussex County Board of Equalization of Taxes and others. Resolution of board set aside.

Argued June term, 1903, before VAN SYCKEL and FORT, JJ.

Lindabury, Depue & Falks, for prosecutor.

FORT, J. The first objection is that the act creating the Sussex County Board of Equalization of Taxes (P. L. 1900, p. 134) is unconstitutional, because it provides for the appointment of the commissioners by the judge of the court of common pleas. This contention cannot be sustained. Ross v. Freeholders of Essex (N. J. Err. & App.) 55 Atl. 310.

The increased assessment in this case must be set aside for a number of reasons.

First. Because no proper notice of the proposed action by the board was given to the assessors of Hardyston township, as required by statute. The statute under which the board may direct an increase expressly provides that "before the valuation of any taxing district shall be increased, the assessor of such district shall be notified in writing that the said commissioners propose to consider the propriety of increasing such assessment and he shall be required to show cause why such increase should not be ordered." P. L. 1900, p. 136, § 6. The form of the notice given the assessors was probably sufficient. It was sent by mail, which the statute authorizes, and was that the assessor show cause before the board on October 1, 1902. The notice was dated September 19, 1902. The statute only requires a five-days notice. On September 24, 1902, another notice was sent to the assessor, as follows: "Newton, N. J., September 26, 1902.

"Mr. L R. Congleton, Newton, N. J.—Dear Sir: The County Board of Equalization of Taxes will complete their work with a final meeting on Tuesday, the 30th, inst., at which time the duplicates will be ready for distribution. We will either hold our meetings at the Court House or at the office of Henry Huston, where the books will be available.

"Yours very truly,

"G. A. Williams, Secretary."

This second notice was clearly bad under the statute for two reasons: First, it was not a five-days notice; second, it did not require the assessor to show cause as to any matter whatever. The board of assessors did not meet on October 1, 1902, pursuant to the notice of September 19, 1902, but did meet on September 30, 1902, and on that day fixed the increased valuation upon the prosecutor brought up by the writ in this case. October 1, 1902, the date upon which the assessor was first notified to appear, was a date beyond which the board could act upon assessments; the statute expressly limiting the time for the board to complete its work as the last day of September in any year. P. L. 1900, p. 137, § 7.

Second. Because the action of the board was to direct an increase upon certain special property in the township of Hardyston, the resolution directing the increase reading as follows: "Resolved, that for the said purposes aforesaid, said mines and mineral lands aforesaid in the said township of Hardyston aforesaid (returned against said the New Jersey Zinc Company at eleven hundred and forty-five thousand dollars) be increased three million eight hundred and forty-five thousand dollars, and that the valuation of said duplicate of said township of Hardyston be increased by the amount last aforesaid after said...