Owen v. Atl. City
| Decision Date | 13 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 302.,302. |
| Citation | 14 A.2d 464,125 N.J.L. 145 |
| Parties | OWEN et al. v. ATLANTIC CITY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Application by Marion R. Owen and others against the City of Atlantic City for a writ of certiorari to review legality of tax lien on certain property and the tax sale proceedings.
Application denied.
Argued May term, 1940, before CASE, DONGES, and HEHER, JJ.
Thomas B. Hall, of Camden, for applicant.
Thomas H. Munyan and Smathers, Scott & Munyan, all of Atlantic City, for respondent.
On March 3, 1931, a property, described as lands, was sold for arrears in taxes to the City of Atlantic City. On November 25, 1938, the city filed its bill in the Court of Chancery, pursuant to the provisions of the statute, R.S. 54:5-85, N.J.S.A. 54:5-85, to foreclose the right of redemption under the twenty-five outstanding certificates of tax sale which related to the property, a tract of meadow land known as Owen Park. Marion R. Owen and others, defendants, filed their answer on March 18, 1939, denying the validity of the assessments, the taxes and the tax sale proceedings. There upon, under R.S. 54:5-101, N.J.S.A. 54:5-101, the proceedings were automatically stayed for a period of four months from that date so that the answering defendants might apply for a writ of certiorari to review the legality of the tax lien and the sale proceedings; with the further provision that if the writ of certiorari should be allowed the proceedings in foreclosure should be further stayed until the writ should have been discharged, but that if the defendants failed to obtain the writ within that period the Court of Chancery should strike out such part of the answer as denied the validity of the tax or the tax sale proceedings and should proceed as if no such defense had been interposed, R.S. 54:5-102, N.J.S.A. 54:5-102. The defendants did not obtain the writ during the designated period, and on October 17, 1939, the complainant moved in Chancery to strike the answer. Thereupon, on the advice of Vice Chancellor Sooy, Chancery granted twenty days within which the answering defendants might make their application for the writ, with the observation, however, that if the application was refused within that time an order would be made striking the answer. Application was made to Mr. Justice Porter for the writ on November 13, 1939. The justice considered the matter and denied the application on February second of this year. Thereupon, on February 6th, the city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Otis Elevator Co.
...wisely gave recognition to reasonable legislative policies bearing on the exercise of that jurisdiction. See Owen v. Atlantic City, 125 N.J.L. 145, 147, 14 A.2d 464 (Sup.Ct.1940); Traphagen v. Township of West Hoboken, 39 N.J.L. 232, 237, (Sup.Ct.1877); Case, J. in Winberry v. Salisbury, su......
-
Como Farms v. Foran
...of the Court's paramount power, procedurally and substantively, over its prerogative writ jurisdiction. See Owen v. Atlantic City, 125 N.J.L. 145, 147, 14 A.2d 464 (Sup.Ct.1940); Rahway Valley Railroad Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 127 N.J.L. 164, 167, 21 A.2d 302 (Sup.Ct.19......
-
Sitgreaves v. Bd. Of Adjustment Of Town Of Nutley
...of the statute, in the light of the particular facts and the history of this proceeding, should be applied. Owen v. Atlantic City, Sup. 1940, 125 N.J.L. 145, 14 A.2d 464. See also Hudson Bus Transp. Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, Sup. 1944, 131 N.J.L. 576, 578, 37 A.2d 636. I......
-
Winberry v. Salisbury
...period in the cases brought before it. Red Oaks, Inc. v. Dorez, Inc., 117 N.J.L. 280, 187 A. 737 (Sup.Ct.1936); Owen v. Atlantic City, 125 N.J.L. 145, 14 A.2d 464 (Sup.Ct.1940); Peckitt v. Board of Adjustment of Spring Lake, 136 N.J.L. 405, 56 A.2d 621 (Sup.Ct.1947). I find nothing in Art. ......