ABR Corp. v. City of Newark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

ABR Corp. v. City of Newark

42 A.2d 296, 133 N.J.L. 34, 1945 N.J. LEXIS 200

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 19, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 A.2d 296 (ABR Corp. v. City of Newark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ABR Corp. v. City of Newark, 42 A.2d 296, 133 N.J.L. 34, 1945 N.J. LEXIS 200 (N.J. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Porter for the Supreme Court.

The opinion says: “Certainly Bratter had no equitable estate in the property which would justify any such assessment to be taxable. His equitable title must be vested and perfected by full performance of the contract.” In our view, the question is whether all the conditions precedent to a conveyance of the legal title have been fulfilled by the vendee. In that event, the government holds the bare naked title and a nominal interest, and the whole value is taxable to the equitable owner. Until all the conditions precedent have been performed, the lands are the property of the government and exempt from taxation by the state. This is the principle of the case of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U. S. 547; 48 S. Ct. 371; 72 L. Ed. 693, reiterated in the case of United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U. S. 174; 64 S. Ct. 908; 88 L. Ed. 1209. The common law doctrine of equitable conversion upon the execution of a contract for the sale of land is not applicable. Until the vendee of a contract for the sale of land owned by the government is entitled to a conveyance of the title by the performance of all conditions precedent, his mere possessory right is not taxable by the state.

*35 For affirmance — The Chancellor, Cujee Justice, Parker, Bodine, IIeher, Perskje, Colie, Wells, Baeeerty, Thoaleson, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Xone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Porter for the Supreme Court.

The opinion says: “Certainly Bratter had no equitable estate in the property which would justify any such assessment to be taxable. His equitable title must be vested and perfected by full performance of the contract.” In our view, the question is whether all the conditions precedent to a conveyance of the legal title have been fulfilled by the vendee. In that event, the government holds the bare naked title and a nominal interest, and the whole value is taxable to the equitable owner. Until all the conditions precedent have been performed, the lands are the property of the government and exempt from taxation by the state. This is the principle of the case of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U. S. 547; 48 S. Ct. 371; 72 L. Ed. 693, reiterated in the case of United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U. S. 174; 64 S. Ct. 908; 88 L. Ed. 1209. The common law doctrine of equitable conversion upon the execution of a contract for the sale of land is not applicable. Until the vendee of a contract for the sale of land owned by the government is entitled to a conveyance of the title by the performance of all conditions precedent, his mere possessory right is not taxable by the state.

*35 For affirmance — The Chancellor, Cujee Justice, Parker, Bodine, IIeher, Perskje, Colie, Wells, Baeeerty, Thoaleson, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Xone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.2d 296, 133 N.J.L. 34, 1945 N.J. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abr-corp-v-city-of-newark-nj-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack