Craven v. State Board of Tax Appeals

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Craven v. State Board of Tax Appeals

33 A.2d 292, 130 N.J.L. 362, 1943 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 95

DecidedJuly 22, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.2d 292 (Craven v. State Board of Tax Appeals) 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

Craven v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 33 A.2d 292, 130 N.J.L. 362, 1943 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 95 (N.J. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Application is made for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the State Board of Tax Appeals fixing the assessment on property of the prosecutors at 172 Belmont Avenue, Jersey City, at $5,100 on land and $3,500 on building, thereby reducing the assessment affirmed by the Hudson County Board of Taxation at $8,100 on land and $4,100 on building.

Application was made to Chief Justice Brogan, who denied a review. Erom the memorandum of the Chief Justice, it appears that the record of the hearing before the State Board of Tax Appeals was before him. It has not been submitted to this court. We have only a brief affidavit of prosecutor setting out the purchase price of the property. No other proof is submitted. Comment is made on the testimony of the city’s expert, but this is controverted by respondents’ affidavits.

It has been repeatedly held that the purchase price of the property under review is not conclusive as to its fair market value. City of Plainfield v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 126 N. J. L. 407. In that case it was said: “There is at the outset a presumption in favor of the quantum, of the assessment as made by the local authority, and the onus of proving an excessive valuation is upon the landowner. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Newark, 118 N. J. L. 490; affirmed, 124 Id. 451.” See, also, Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 Id. 450.

Erom the record befoi’e us, we are unable to discern any proof of an assessment in excess of fair value.

The application is denied, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Application is made for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the State Board of Tax Appeals fixing the assessment on property of the prosecutors at 172 Belmont Avenue, Jersey City, at $5,100 on land and $3,500 on building, thereby reducing the assessment affirmed by the Hudson County Board of Taxation at $8,100 on land and $4,100 on building.

Application was made to Chief Justice Brogan, who denied a review. Erom the memorandum of the Chief Justice, it appears that the record of the hearing before the State Board of Tax Appeals was before him. It has not been submitted to this court. We have only a brief affidavit of prosecutor setting out the purchase price of the property. No other proof is submitted. Comment is made on the testimony of the city’s expert, but this is controverted by respondents’ affidavits.

It has been repeatedly held that the purchase price of the property under review is not conclusive as to its fair market value. City of Plainfield v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 126 N. J. L. 407. In that case it was said: “There is at the outset a presumption in favor of the quantum, of the assessment as made by the local authority, and the onus of proving an excessive valuation is upon the landowner. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Newark, 118 N. J. L. 490; affirmed, 124 Id. 451.” See, also, Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 Id. 450.

Erom the record befoi’e us, we are unable to discern any proof of an assessment in excess of fair value.

The application is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.2d 292, 130 N.J.L. 362, 1943 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craven-v-state-board-of-tax-appeals-nj-1943.