Teaneck Tp. v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
| Decision Date | 20 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 212.,212. |
| Parties | TEANECK TP. v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Following the construction placed on sections 202 and 203 of the Tax Act of 1918 (P. L. p. 8471, Comp. St. Supp. §§ 208—66d(202), 208—66d(203), in Jersey City v. Blum, 101 N. J. Law, 93, 127 A. 214, by the Court of Errors and Appeals, held, that lands situate in Teaneck township, Bergen county, and owned by that county, though not used for any public purpose, were exempt from taxation by the township.
Certiorari to State Board of Tax Appeals.
Certiorari by the Township of Teaneck to review a judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals exempting certain real estate owned by Bergen County from taxation.
Judgment affirmed.
Argued October term, 1932, before PARKER, LLOYD, and HEHER, JJ.
Warner W. Westervelt, Jr., of Hackensack, for prosecutor.
Stanton T. Lawrence, of Rutherford, for defendant Bergen County.
On the taxing date, October 1, 1928, the land in question was, as stated by the board, idle. It was not in use for any purpose whatever. There had been some thought of using it for a children's home, but that idea had been abandoned, and the home had been built elsewhere. A feeble attempt had been made to raise hay and garden truck for county purposes, but that had been abandoned also. Some old buildings had been destroyed, the tract was simply disused, and, while one of the freeholders testified that the county was "holding it, because sooner or later I think we will need that for a park or something else," he admitted that offers to sell had been considered, but that the amount had been deemed insufficient, and the board of freeholders felt they ought to hold it until they could use it for some county purpose. But no actual use was being made, and none was presently intended.
The state board put its decision affirming the exemption ordered by the county board on the ground that, "notwithstanding the land is idle, it is used for public purposes in contemplation of law," citing several cases" which it will be unnecessary to discuss.
The Tax Act of 1918 (P. L. p. 847) provides by section 202 of the act, Comp. St. Supp. § 208—66d(202), that "all property, real and personal, * * * not expressly exempted by this act or excluded from its operation, shall be subject to taxation annually under this act at its true value. * * * "
By section 203, several times amended, certain exemptions are declared. The amendment in force on October 1, 1928, was that of 1927, P. L. p. 790 (Comp. St. Supp. § 208—66d(203), which exempts "property of the respective counties * * * when located therein and used for public purposes. * * *"
But for the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals, touching these very sections, in Jersey City v. Blum, 101 N. J. Law, 93, 96, 127...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand River Drainage Dist. of Cass and Bates Counties v. Reid
... ... Sec. 6, ... Art. X, Mo. Const.; Sec. 9743, R. S. 1929; State ex rel ... Caldwell v. Little River, Drain. Dist., 291 Mo. 72, 236 ... S.W. 15; State ex rel ... 938; Springfield v. Johnson, ... 37 P. 577; Teneck Township v. State Board of Tax ... Appeals, 164 A. 895; State v. Belleville, 39 A ... 658; Portland v. Welch, 269 P. 868; Colorado ... ...
-
Bergen County v. Borough of Paramus
...v. Div. of Tax Appeals, supra 2 N.J. at 332, 66 A.2d 534. In using that language, Jamouneau referred to Tp. of Teaneck v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals, 110 N.J.L. 28, 164 A. 895 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd p. c. o. b. 111 N.J.L. 242, 168 A. 449 (E.& A.1933). A reading of the Teaneck opinion discloses that......
-
Jamouneau v. Div. Of Tax Appeals
...Park Commission v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 129 N.J.L. 336, 29 A.2d 739 (Sup.Ct. 1943). In Township of Teaneck v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 110 N.J.L. 28, 164 A. 895 (Sup.Ct.1932), affirmed 111 N.J.L. 242, 168 A. 449 (E. & A. 1933), the disputed assessment was on land which was owned b......
-
Landis Tp. v. Div. Of Tax Appeals Of State Dep't Of Taxation
...after considering the cases of Jersey City v. Blum, Err. & App. 1925, 101 N.J.L. 93, 127 A. 214; Township of Teaneck v. State Board of Tax Appeals, Sup.Ct. 1933, 110 N.J.L. 28, 164 A. 895, affirmed for reasons given below, Err. & App. 1933, 111 N.J.L. 242, 168 A. 449; and Essex County Park ......