SCHWARTZ v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, 130 N.J.L. 177 (1943)

32 A.2d 354

EDWARD SCHWARTZ, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. THE ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, THE CITY OF NEWARK, ANNA MYERS PURE FOODS, INC., FLINT FULTON, INC., TENNERT ORCHARDS, INC., FELDMAN BROS. CO., WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., ATLANTIC TERMINALS, INC., AND MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO., INC., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted February 13, 1943 —
Decided May 13, 1943.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported i 129 N.J.L. 129.

Page 178

For the prosecutor-appellant, Edward Schwartz, pro se.

For City of Newark, Raymond Schroeder and Thomas L. Parsonnet.

For Atlantic Terminals, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. McCarter, English Egner (Conover English).

For Flint Fulton, Inc., Feldman Bros. Co., Anna Myers Pure Foods, Inc., Hobart, Minard Cooper (Duane E. Minard and G. Addison Hobart).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Colie in his opinion in the Supreme Court, and reported in 129 N.J.L. 129. In that case, however, it was stated: “We do not mean to approve the practice of by-passing the State Board of Tax Appeals, excepting where, as here, the single question presented involves a determination of the constitutionality of a legislative act.” The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on certiorari is not so limited.

Chief Justice Brogan said in Duke Power Co. v. Somerset County Board of Taxation, 124 N.J.L. 481 (at p. 486): “A challenge to the jurisdiction of a special tribunal or irregularity in its proceeding need not, in the sound discretion of this court, await final judgment.” See, also, Mowery v Camden, 49 N.J.L. 106; Potter v. Fritz, 54 Id. 436 Landis v. Vineland, 60 Id. 271; Croasdale v. Atlantic Quarter Sessions, 88 Id. 506; Public Service Railway Co. v Camden, 95 Id. 190; Breen Iron Works v. Richardson, 115 Id. 305; Degenring v. Kimble, 115 Id. 379; Oradell v State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 Id. 37; Licker v. Martin Box Co., 127 Id. 136.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — PARKER, BODINE, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 8.

For reversal — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HEHER, RAFFERTY, JJ. 3.

Page 179

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 32 A.2d 354

Recent Posts

State v. Ackerman, 64 N.J.L. 99 (1899)

64 N.J.L. 99 THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR v. ALBERT J. ACKERMAN, DEFENDANT BELOW, PLAINTIFF…

3 years ago

ROYSTER v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, No. 075926 (N.J. 1/17/2017) [SLIP COPY]

SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court.? It has been…

9 years ago

PEARSON v. DMH2 LLC, No. C-151-15 (N.J. Super. 1/25/2017) [SLIP COPY]

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION (January 25, 2017) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION, ESSEX COUNTY…

9 years ago

STATE v. ELLISON, No. 01-06-2563-I (N.J. Super. 1/13/2017) [SLIP COPY]

  APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, ESSEX COUNTY STATE OF NEW JERSEY,…

9 years ago

IN THE MATTER OF LATINSKY, 175 N.J. 66 (2002)

811 A.2d 909 IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN C. LATINSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.Supreme Court…

9 years ago

YUN v. FORD MOTOR CO., 143 N.J. 162 (1996)

669 A.2d 1378 GLORIA YUN, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF CHANG HAK YUN,…

9 years ago