Halenbeck v. Mayor, C., Hoboken

187 A. 177, 121 N.J. Eq. 49
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedOctober 5, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 187 A. 177 (Halenbeck v. Mayor, C., Hoboken) 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
Halenbeck v. Mayor, C., Hoboken, 187 A. 177, 121 N.J. Eq. 49 (N.J. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is from a decree in the prerogative court which set aside an order in the orphans court which (1) set aside the allowance of an executor’s final account; (2) granted letters of administration cum, testamento annexe to another; and (3) required the former executor, as trustee, *50 to give a bond to the ordinary; and (4) required sundry acts not here necessary to recite. The action of the orphans court was predicated upon the petition of the city of Hoboken showing that certain taxes levied upon the personal property of decedent had not been paid by the executor. The relief granted in the orphans court was in aid of the collection of taxes.

The Tax act, as amended (P. L. 1983 ch. 266 p. 719 9), provides a means for the collection of delinquent taxes levied against personal property. It is unnecessary to consider the validity of the tax in question, although it should be noted that it was controverted.

“Taxes can only be levied and collected in the manner prescribed by the statute, where it undertakes to provide the means.” State,. Trustee, &c., v. Lewis, Collector, 35 N. J. Law 377 (at p. 380).

No action lies for the recovery of a tax save as provided by law. Wrightstown v. Salvation Army, 97 N. J. Law 89.

The orphans court, being without power to compel the payment of the taxes in question, had no jurisdiction to set aside the accounting. The city of Hoboken may collect its taxes as the legislature has provided, and if it regards the present means inadequate it may seek redress.

No opinion is expressed as to the other matters presented in the appeal, because unnecessary to a decision.

The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justioe, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Hehee, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, JJ. 10. For reversal — None.

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

Related

Alan Chorun v. Philip Chorun
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2025
Dome Realty, Inc. v. City of Paterson
375 A.2d 1240 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)
Braman v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co.
47 A.2d 10 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1946)
Newark v. Jos. Hollander, Inc.
42 A.2d 872 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1945)
In Re Riland
30 A.2d 902 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1943)
In Re Kuser
26 A.2d 688 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1942)
In re the Appeal from the Order of the Orphans Court
132 N.J. Eq. 260 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1942)
In Re Schlemm
22 A.2d 364 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1941)
Willson v. Tripp
199 A. 581 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A. 177, 121 N.J. Eq. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halenbeck-v-mayor-c-hoboken-nj-1936.