Tennant v. Jersey City
| Decision Date | 22 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 34.,34. |
| Citation | 8 A.2d 325,123 N.J.L. 200 |
| Parties | TENNANT v. JERSEY CITY et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by George C. Tennant against the City of Jersey City and another to review a decision of the State Board of Tax Appeals determining the valuation of property for purposes of taxation. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 122 N.J.L. 174, 4 A.2d 395, reversing the decision of the State Board of Tax Appeals, the City of Jersey City and another appeal.
Affirmed.
James A. Hamill, of Jersey City (Frank P. McCarthy, of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellants.
George C. Tennant, pro se.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court on certiorari that fixed the assessment on the respondent's land and residence for the tax year of 1936 at $15,000. The record is replete with contradictory evidence and such facts as are undisputed are susceptible of conflicting inferences. The record as a whole presents a close factual situation.
It is a settled rule that findings of fact by the Supreme Court on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of conflicting inference, are conclusive on appeal where such findings of fact are based upon competent evidence. Jersey City v. State Water Policy Commission, 118 N.J.L. 72, 77, 191 A. 456; Dana College v. State Board, etc., 117 N.J.L. 530, 189 A. 620; West Shore Railroad Company v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 112 N.J.L. 83, 169 A. 829; Angelotti v. Montclair, 109 N.J.L. 360, 162 A. 565; Kohn v. Tilt, 103 N.J.L. 110, 134 A. 658; Collingswood v. Water Supply Commission, 85 N.J.L. 673, 90 A. 277; Yellow Pine Company v. State Board of Assessors, 72 N.J.L. 182, 61 A. 436; Moran v. Jersey City, 58 N.J.L. 653, 35 A. 284. The finding below is supported by competent proof and such finding is controlling here.
For this reason the judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices PARKER, BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, and HAGUE —12.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erie R. System, In re
...comparable to the record disclosed in Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 174, 175--176, 4 A.2d 395 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed 123 N.J.L. 200, 8 A.2d 325 (E. & A.1939). We decline to rule whether an expert may formulate his opinion as to true value of property on an assessment date by reference......
-
Borough of Haworth v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...the evidence is persuasive that the Board erred in its determination.' Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 174, 4 A.2d 395, affirmed 123 N.J.L. 200, 8 A.2d 325." Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. 450, 453, 9 A.2d 531, 533. Cf. Colonial Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Tax Appea......
-
Lawrence Tp. v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...the evidence is persuasive that the board erred in its determination, Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 174, 4 A.2d 395, affirmed, 123 N.J.L. 200, 8 A.2d 325; Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. 450, 9 A.2d 531; Skouras Theatres Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. ......
-
Zoller v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...is correct. Until overcome by persuasive proof that it is incorrect (Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N.J.L. 174, 4 A.2d 395, affirmed, 123 N.J.L. 200, 8 A.2d 325), the presumption of the correctness of the assessment levied continues in determining the value of personal property assessed (New J......