Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. Of Taxation
| Decision Date | 13 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 34.,34. |
| Citation | 32 A.2d 354,130 N.J.L. 177 |
| Parties | SCHWARTZ v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by Edward Schwartz against the Essex County Board of Taxation and others to review a decision of the County Board of Taxation denying petitioner's petition for assessment of omitted property. From a judgment, 129 N.J.L. 129, 28 A.2d 482, dismissing the writ of certiorari, the petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Edward Schwartz, of Newark, pro se, for prosecutor-appellant.
Raymond Schroeder and Thomas L. Parsonnet, both of Newark, for City of Newark.
McCarter, English & Egner and Conover English, all of Newark, for Atlantic Terminals, Inc., and Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.
Hobart, Minard & Cooper, Duane E. Minard, and G. Addison Hobart, all of Newark, for Flint & Fulton, Inc., Feldman Bros. Co., and Anna Myers Pure Foods, Inc.
The judgment under review will be affirmed for the reasons stated by Justice Colie in his opinion in the Supreme Court reported in 129 N.J.L. 129, 28 A.2d 482, 484. In that case, however, it was stated: ‘We do not mean to approve the practice of by-passing the State Board of Tax Appeals, excepting where, as here, the single question presented involves a determination of the constitutionality of a legislative act.’ The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on certiorari is not so limited.
Chief Justice Brogan said in Duke Power Co. v. Somerset County Board of Taxation, 124 N.J.L. 481, 486, 12 A.2d 234, 237: ‘A challenge to the jurisdiction of a special tribunal or irregularity in its proceeding need not, in the sound discretion of this court, await final judgment.’ See, also: Mowery v. Camden, 49 N.J.L. 106, 6 A. 438; Potter v. Fritz, 54 N.J.L. 436, 24 A. 553; Landis v. Vineland, 60 N.J.L. 271, 37 A. 1099; Croasdale v. Atlantic Quarter Sessions, 88 N.J.L. 506, 97 A. 285; Public Service Rwy. Co. v. Camden, 95 N.J.L. 190, 112 A. 421; Breen Iron Works v. Richardson, 115 N.J.L. 305, 180 A. 192; Degenring v. Kimble, 115 N.J.L. 379, 180 A. 685; Borough of Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 N.J.L. 37, 13 A.2d 479; Licker v. Martin Box Co., 127 N.J.L. 136, 21 A.2d 595.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance: Justices PARKER, BODINE, PERSKIE, and PORTER, and Judges DEAR, WELLS, HAGUE, and THOMPSON-8.
For reversal: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice HEHER, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Co. v. City of Passaic
...was sustained in Schwartz v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 129 N.J.L. 129, 28 A.2d 482 (Sup.Ct.1942), affirmed 130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2d 354 (E. & A.1943), and it has been applied in many reported decisions. See Maritime Petroleum Corp. v. City of Jersey City, 1 N.J. 287, 63 A.2d 262 (1949)......
-
Town of Morristown v. Woman's Club of Morristown, A-121
...so situated, omitting none." Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 129 N.J.L. 129, 28 A.2d 482 (Sup.Ct.1942), aff'd, 130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2d 354 (E. & A.1943); see General Elec. Co., supra, 28 N.J. at 510, 147 A.2d 233 (declining to depart from the holding in Schwartz Finally, the major......
-
Brunson v. Rutherford Lodge No. 547 of Benev. and Protective Order of Elks
...398, (St.Bd.Tax App.1942); Schwartz v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 129 N.J.L. 129, 28 A.2d 482 (Sup.Ct.1942), aff'd 130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2d 354 (E. & A.1943); see Pleasantville Taxpayers v. Pleasantville, 115 N.J.Super. 85, 278 A.2d 229 (App.Div.1971), aff'g 111 N.J.Super. 377, 268 A.2d......
-
Town of Morristown v. Woman's Club of Morristown
...987 (1959), quoting Schwartz v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 129 N.J.L. 129, 133-34, 28 A.2d 482 (Sup.Ct.1942), aff'd 130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2d 354 (E. & A. 1943)4 Exemptions from the operation of a tax "must be presumed to rest on [a rational] basis if there is any conceivable state of fa......