Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Township of Long Beach

164 A. 278, 110 N.J.L. 221, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 465
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 31, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 A. 278 (Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Township of Long Beach) 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
Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Township of Long Beach, 164 A. 278, 110 N.J.L. 221, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 465 (N.J. 1933).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lloyd, J.

At the threshold of these cases we are confronted with the right of appellant to have them reviewed in this court. Its lands had been sold for taxes, purchased by the township, and bills had been filed in the Court of Chancery by the township to foreclose the equity of redemption of the owner. Answers were filed setting up invalidity of the tax sales and under chapter 202 of the laws of 1925 (page 480) proceedings were staj^ed in that court to permit the owner to apply to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari to review the legality of the tax sales.

Application for such writs was made to a justice of the Supreme Court, his allocatur was given and the writs issued. Thereafter, and before return to the writs had been made, notice was given by counsel for the township of a motion to vacate the allocatur previously allowed. This motion was granted without prejudice to the right of appellant to apply to the Supreme Court. From the order granting the motion to vacate the allocatur in each case, these appeals are taken.

*222 Without entering into the questions involved in the sales proceedings we are of opinion that the appellant is without standing in this court. The power to grant writs of certiorari, with a single exception, resides inherently in the Supreme Court, and is discretionary in character. It is a power that can neither be withdrawn from it by legislative authority nor conferred on other tribunals. Green v. Heritage, 64 N. J. L. 571. That both its allowance and the withdrawal of allocatur for its issue are discretionary is, we think, demonstrated by the research and reasoning of Mr. Justice Minturn in the case of Winegrath v. Fairview, 77 Id. 448; a discretion that cannot be reviewed in this court.

The appeals are dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Switz v. Township of Middletown
130 A.2d 15 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1957)
Ferragina v. Kaplan
28 A.2d 175 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1942)
Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Borough of Harvey Cedars
168 A. 128 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 A. 278, 110 N.J.L. 221, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-b-frazier-co-v-township-of-long-beach-nj-1933.