State v. Inhabitants of Union Tp.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1902
• Parties: STATE (BROOKS et al., Prosecutors) v. INHABITANTS OF UNION TP.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

52 A. 238

68 N.J.L. 133

STATE (BROOKS et al., Prosecutors)

v. INHABITANTS OF UNION TP.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 9, 1902.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of Julia G. Brooks and others, against the inhabitants of the township of Union in Bergen county to set aside as invalid certain tax sales. Sales set aside.

Argued February term, 1902, before FORT, PITNEY, and HENDRICKSON, JJ.

Hartshorne, Insley & Leake, for prosecutors.

Jos. A. McCreery, for defendant.

HENDRICKSON, J. The prosecutors of this writ are seeking to set aside as invalid certain sales of lands for taxes made by the collector of the township of Union in the county of Bergen. The assessment reads: "Heirs of J. C. Van Horn, blocks 2, 3, and 6, block 7, plots 146 to 153 and 158 to 170." The amounts of the taxes were: For 1893, $132.06, for 1894, $142.39. The sale for each year's tax took place in the year following, and the township became the purchaser at each sale for the term of 30 years. The taxes, interest, costs, and expenses of sale were paid by the township, and the amount thus paid, with the subsequent taxes assessed thereon, must be paid by the owners in order to redeem. The prosecutors are three of the children and heirs of J. C. Van Horn, and the lands so sold came to them through a partition of the latter's estate. From the depositions taken it would seem probable that the land would have been redeemed, by a settlement of the township claim, without a resort to this action, had the township authorities been disposed to recognize a payment of $850, made to a special collector of the township committee, by the owners, who defaulted and embezzled the funds. Upon this subject the stipulations show that on July 3, 1899, the township committee at a regular meeting, by resolution, authorized such special collector to collect the back taxes of the years from 1890 to 1898, inclusive, on a commission of 15 per cent., and report at each regular meeting the amount collected. On August 7, following, such special collector was required by resolution of the committee to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of his duties as tax collector. He filed such bond with a surety in the sum of $1,000, which was accepted at a regular meeting of the committee on September 6, 1899. It further appears that the committee at a regular meeting on May 1, 1899, by resolution, ordered that a quitclaim deed should be granted on the property in question "on payment of the full amount of taxes, $850, due, without interest." This amount was paid to the special collector, in different payments, covering the period from September 26, 1899, and March 3, 1900, he giving receipts for the same as attorney and special collector of Union township, the last one stating the payment to be "in full for taxes due the township of Union from the Van Horn estate." The special collector reported to the committee at regular meetings from time to time between August 7, 1899, and May 7, 1900, but failed to report any of the collections made of the taxes upon the Van Horn estate. Later on, the tax collector of the township and the committee also refused to recognize the validity of the previous payments, and demanded payment of all arrears of taxes upon the property. Thereupon this writ was issued to test the validity of the tax sales.

One of the grounds upon which the legality of the sales is challenged is that the sales were made on a day subsequent to the date for which the notice of sale was given, without anything to show...