Schwartz v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation

• Decision Date: 13 October 1942
• Docket Number: No. 244.,244.
• Parties: SCHWARTZ v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

28 A.2d 482

129 N.J.L. 129

SCHWARTZ

v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al.

No. 244.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 13, 1942.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The appropriate prerogative writ is available to private persons seeking to remedy wrongful acts of public officials when the applicant therefor is one of the class of persons to be most directly affected in their enjoyment of public rights and the public convenience will be subserved thereby.

2. The maxim de minimis non curat lex may not, standing alone, defeat the right to attack the constitutionality of a legislative act.

3. The determination of the constitutionality of an act of the legislature rests with a judicial body alone.

4. The legislature has broad discretionary powers in establishing classifications for purposes of taxation and exemption from taxation. Such classifications meet the constitutional requirements if they rest upon a substantial distinction, have a logical and reasonable basis, and include all property and omit none falling within the named classification.

5. A classification of personal property enacted for the purpose of encouraging a given business is both logical and reasonable.

Certiorari by the State of New Jersey on the relation of Edward Schwartz, a tax-payer in the City of Newark, against the Essex County Board of Taxation and others, to review decision of County Board of Taxation dismissing prosecutor's petition for assessment of omitted property, wherein the Atlantic Terminals, Inc. and others intervened.

Writ of certiorari dismissed.

May term, 1942, before CASE, DONGES, and COLIE, JJ.

Edward Schwartz, pro se, of Newark, for prosecutor.

Hobart, Minard & Cooper, of Newark (Duane E. Minard and G. Addison Hobart, both of Newark, of counsel), for respondents Flint & Fulton, Inc., and others.

Mark A. Sullivan, of Jersey City, for respondent Merchants Refrigerating Co.

McCarter, English & Egner, of Newark (Conover English, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent Atlantic Terminals, Inc., and another.

John H. Yauch, Jr., of Newark (Maximilian M. Stallman, of Newark, of counsel), for Lehigh Warehouse & Transportation Co., and another, amici curiae.

COLIE, Justice.

Edward Schwartz, a taxpayer in the City of Newark, instituted proceedings before the Essex County Board of Taxation pursuant to R.S. 54:3-20, N.J.S.A. 54:3-20, the applicable part of which reads as follows: "On the written complaint of the collector, or any taxpayer of the taxing district or of the governing body thereof, that property specified has been omitted in the assessment, the county board, on five days' notice in writing to the owner by the party complaining, and after due examination and hearing, may enter the omitted property on the duplicate by judgment rendered within ten days after the hearing, a transcript whereof shall be furnished by the board to the collector, who shall amend his duplicate accordingly." The complaint and petition filed by the prosecutor set forth that Anna Myers Pure Foods, Inc., Flint & Fulton, Inc., Tennert Orchards, Inc. and Feldman Bros. Co. each had personal property of a substantial value during the year preceding October 1st, 1940, in the warehouse of Merchants Refrigerating Company located in the City of Newark and that the property owned by the above named corporations was wholly omitted from the tax list and duplicate filed by the City of Newark for the year 1941. The petition then prays that the omitted property be added to the list of taxable property. The County Board of Taxation dismissed the petition on the ground that the merchandise so stored with the Merchants Refrigerating Company was exempt from taxation by virtue of R.S. 54:4-3.20, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.20, reading: "All personal property stored in a warehouse of any person, copartnership or corporation engaged in the business of storing goods for hire shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter." A writ of certiorari was allowed to review the aforementioned action of the County Board of Taxation. By order of the court, Anna Myers Pure Foods, Inc., Flint & Fulton, Inc., Tennert Orchards, Inc., and Feldman Bros. Co. were made respondents to the writ of certiorari and thereafter the court permitted Atlantic Terminals, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. and Merchants Refrigerating Company to intervene as respondents. Later, Lehigh Warehouse & Transportation Co. and Lackawanna Warehouse Co., Inc., were permitted to file briefs as amici curiae.

The basic question for determination is whether the provisions of R.S. 54:4-3.20 violate Articles 4, section 7, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the State Constitution N.J.S.A. and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Before discussing the basic question, three preliminary questions require decision.

Respondents challenge the prosecutor's standing to institute these proceedings under the general rule that one applying for a writ of certiorari must show that he will suffer a substantial injury beyond that which will affect him in common with the rest of the public. Our courts, from an early date, have lent the aid of the appropriate prerogative writ to private persons seeking to remedy wrongful acts of public officials when the applicant is one of the class of persons to be most directly affected in their enjoyment of public rights and the public convenience will be subserved thereby. Cf. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332, 337, 32 Am.Rep. 219. If a doubt exists as to the standing of the prosecutor under the holding in Ferry v. Williams, supra, it has been set at rest by the legislative bestowal of the right to institute such proceedings on "any taxpayer of the taxing district."

Respondents next assert that inasmuch as the prosecutor's assessment for the year 1940 was on a total valuation of $600, resulting in a tax to him of $29.10, that, applying the maxim de minimis non curat lex, the court should not burden itself with this problem. It is true that the pecuniary interest of the prosecutor is small. However, the constitutionality of a legislative act is called in question by the assertion that the legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction. An attack upon the constitutionality of a legislative act is never unimportant, and the standing of one otherwise qualified to question the legislation is not to be determined by the mere matter of dollars and cents involved. Cf. Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 4th Ed., c. 14, pp. 646, 647.

Lastly, the argument is advanced that the prosecutor is precluded from prosecuting the writ of certiorari granted to him under the well established rule that a writ of certiorari may...