State v. Moriarty
| Decision Date | 16 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. A--708,A--708 |
| Citation | 246 A.2d 476,102 N.J.Super. 579 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Joseph V. MORIARTY, Defendant. Frank J. FARLEY, Treasurer of the County of Hudson, and County of Hudson, Petitioners-Respondents, v. $168,400.97, and Frank S. Turbett, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue, and United States of America, Claimants-Appellants. STATE of New Jersey, by Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Frank J. FARLEY, Treasurer of the County of Hudson, and County of Hudson, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
David M. Satz, Jr., U.S. Atty., for claimants-appellants (Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson, Crombie J. D. Garrett and Bennet N. Hollander, Dept. of Justice, attorneys, Kenneth P. Zauber, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel).
Isadore Glauberman, Jersey City, Sp. Counsel, for respondents (William F. Kelly, Jr., Hudson County Counsel, attorney, Sheldon A. Weiss, Jersey City, on the brief).
Before Judges GOLDMANN, KOLOVSKY and CARTON.
We affirm essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Rosen in 97 N.J.Super. 458, 235 A.2d 247 (Law Div.1967), deeming ourselves bound by what was said in Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546, at page 558 et seq., and particularly page 560, 109 A.2d 623 (1954), as to the interpretation to be given N.J.S. 2A:152--6 to 11, N.J.S.A. inclusive. In this connection we observe that § 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.A. § 6321) provides that the Government's jeopardy assessment 'shall be a lien * * * upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, Belonging to such person.' (Italics ours) Under Spagnuolo title to the monies in question was no longer in Moriarty at the time the jeopardy assessment was made, but was then in the County of Hudson.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farley v. $168,400.97
...resulting in a judgment for the County. 97 N.J.Super. 458, 235 A.2d 247 (Law Div.1967). The Appellate Division affirmed, 102 N.J.Super. 579, 246 A.2d 476 (App.Div.1968), and we granted the petition of the United States for certification, 53 N.J. 273, 250 A.2d 137 For many years Moriarty was......
-
State v. One (1) Ford Van, Econoline, White, Bearing Delaware Registration C80-195 S/N-E14GHR09151
...of the lawmakers. We take note that State v. Moriarty, 97 N.J.Super. 458, 474, 235 A.2d 247 (Law Div. 1967), aff'd 102 N.J.Super. 579, 246 A.2d 476 (App.Div. 1968), aff'd sub nom. Farley v. $168,400.97, 55 N.J. 31, 259 A.2d 201 (1969), is to the effect that forfeiture statutes are not to be......
-
Kutner Buick, Inc. v. Strelecki
...Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546, 560, 109 A.2d 623 (1954); State v. Moriarty, 97 N.J.Super. 458, 235 A.2d 247 (Law Div.1967), aff'd 102 N.J.Super. 579, 246 A.2d 476 (App.Div.1968), aff'd Farley v. $168,400.97, 55 N.J. 31, 259 A.2d 201 Statutes providing for the forfeiture of illicit goods or property u......
-
State v. McCoy
...14 N.J. 446, 453, 102 A.2d 609 (1954); State v. Moriarty, 97 N.J.Super. 458, 474, 235 A.2d 247 (Law Div.1967), aff'd 102 N.J.Super. 579, 246 A.2d 476 (App.Div.1968), aff'd Sub nom. Farley v. $168,400.97, supra; State v. Rodriquez, supra, 130 N.J.Super. at 62, 324 A.2d 911. See Kugler v. Ban......