Hoboken v. Jersey City

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hoboken v. Jersey City

53 A. 595, 68 N.J.L. 607, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 4

DecidedNovember 24, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A. 595 (Hoboken v. Jersey City) 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

Hoboken v. Jersey City, 53 A. 595, 68 N.J.L. 607, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 4 (N.J. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The allowance of this writ would be futile, in view of section 6 of the act of March 23d, 1900. Pamph. L., p. 502. The object of the prosecutor is to affect the apportionment of taxes for the current year. The return mentioned in section 3 has been filed. The proviso of section 6 provides that such a reduction as is sought by the prosecutor shall not effect any change in the current apportionment. It is therefore useless to grant the writ. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether the writ would lie.

The rule to show cause is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The allowance of this writ would be futile, in view of section 6 of the act of March 23d, 1900. Pamph. L., p. 502. The object of the prosecutor is to affect the apportionment of taxes for the current year. The return mentioned in section 3 has been filed. The proviso of section 6 provides that such a reduction as is sought by the prosecutor shall not effect any change in the current apportionment. It is therefore useless to grant the writ. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether the writ would lie.

The rule to show cause is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A. 595, 68 N.J.L. 607, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoboken-v-jersey-city-nj-1902.