Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

STATE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. MORRIS RUDNER, DE

FENDANT IN ERROR.

Argued November 27, 1918-Decided March 3, 1919.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 92 N. J. L. 20.

For the plaintiff in error, A. Dayton Oliphant and Martin P. Devlin.

For the defendant in error, Harry Heher, Aaron V. Dawes and John A. Montgomery.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice. The supplement thereto by our opinion just filed in State v. Lerin (ante p. 553) is applicable also to the present case.

(For dissenting opinion by the Chancellor, see ante p. 555.)

For affirmance-SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, BERGEN, MINTURN, BLACK, HEPPENHEIMER, TAYLOR, GARDNER, JJ. 8.

For reversalTHE CHANCELLOR, WHITE, WILLIAMS, JJ. 3.

Totowa v. State Board of Taxes.

92 N.J. L.

THE BOROUGH OF TOTOWA, RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE

BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL., APPEL-
LANTS.

Submitted December 9, 1918-Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed :

“The borough of Totowa levied an assessment for taxes to the extent of $35,000 on the property of the Mausoleum Builders of New Jersey, which the county board of taxes canceled, and on appeal to the state board it affirmed the cancellation notwithstanding that the Court of Errors and Appeals of this state had declared that this identical property was subject to taxation. The ground upon which the state board rests its action is a statute of 1916, page 477, which provides, section 6, that 'All mausoleums, vaults, crypts or structures intended to hold or to contain the bodies of the dead, now erected or which may hereafter be erected and located within any duly authorized cemetery organized in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey, shall be exempt from taxation in like manner as such cemeteries are now exempt by law.'

"The state board conceding that the act is unconstitutional so far as it confers immunity from taxation, said it was bound by its language, and therefore affirmed the action of the county board. It is our opinion that granting the act to be constitutional it does not apply to lands purchased by a corporation not a cemetery association, and that the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals has not been affected by this new legislation. But aside from this the paragraph of the law exempting from taxation this property, is manifestly unconstitutional. Its title is ‘An act to prescribe the conditions and restrictions under which public vaults, crypts or mausoleums for the interment of human bodies are constructed, and fixing penalties for failure to comply therewith.'

92 N. J. L.

Totowa v. State Board of Taxes.

“The section of the act which is intended to exempt from taxation is in no way germane to the subject to which the title of the act refers, which is limited to the manner of construction and penalties for failure to comply therewith, and gives no sort of intimation that exemption from taxation was the subject of the act, and the exempting paragraph has no more place there than would a charter for a railroad company.

“The order of the county board and of the state board should be set aside, and the original assessment affirmed."

For the appellant, Michael Dunn.

For the respondent, Walter E. IIudson.

PER CURLIM.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR,

THE CILINCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCII, WINTE, HEPPENHELMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, JJ. 11.

For reversal-lone.

West Shore R. R. Co. v. State Board of Taxes.

92 N.J.L.

WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. THE

STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS.

UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD AND CANAL COMPANY,

APPELLANT, V. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND
ASSESSMENT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, APPEL

LANT, V. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESS-
MENT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, APPEL

LANT, V. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESS-
MENT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

RARITAN RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, V.

THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., APPEL

LANT, V. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESS-
MENT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE

BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL., RESPON-
DENTS.

Argued November 22, 1918-Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 92 N. J. L. 332.

For the appellant, Collins & Corbin.

For the respondents, John W. I'escott, attorney general.

92 N. J. L.

West Shore R. R. Co. v. State Board of Taxes.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments under review in the above stated cases should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Minturn in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, BERGEN, KALISCH, BLACK, WHITE, HEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, JJ. 10.

For reversalNone.

« PreviousContinue »