In re the Taxation of the New York File & Sharpening Co.

New Jersey Court of Chancery

In re the Taxation of the New York File & Sharpening Co.

43 N.J. Eq. 413

DecidedOctober 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 43 N.J. Eq. 413 (In re the Taxation of the New York File & Sharpening Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Taxation of the New York File & Sharpening Co., 43 N.J. Eq. 413 (N.J. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Bird, Y. C.

I do not think the state has made out what the statute contemplates as a “ proper case” for the interference of this court to-aid in the collection of the assessments imposed on this company. I think the court should move cautiously, for what it can do under the statute in aid of the law courts in collecting taxes, is in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture; that is, it can only interfere by enjoining the delinquent from transacting any business within this state. The statute confers no other power.

The facts are, that this company carried on the business of manufacturing within this state so long as it could find a market for its wares, since when it has manufactured nothing in this state or elsewhere. It was not manufacturing at the time of this assessment. It has preserved its organization, but has transacted no other business. In my judgment, these facts take the case [414]*414out of the statute, and consequently the parties must be left to their ordinary remedies at law. See, also, American Glucose Co. v. New Jersey, 16 Stew. Eq. 280; Faure Electric Light Co.’s Case, 16 Stew. Eq. 411.

I will advise an order that the petition be dismissed.

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

Bird, Y. C.

I do not think the state has made out what the statute contemplates as a “ proper case” for the interference of this court to-aid in the collection of the assessments imposed on this company. I think the court should move cautiously, for what it can do under the statute in aid of the law courts in collecting taxes, is in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture; that is, it can only interfere by enjoining the delinquent from transacting any business within this state. The statute confers no other power.

The facts are, that this company carried on the business of manufacturing within this state so long as it could find a market for its wares, since when it has manufactured nothing in this state or elsewhere. It was not manufacturing at the time of this assessment. It has preserved its organization, but has transacted no other business. In my judgment, these facts take the case [414]*414out of the statute, and consequently the parties must be left to their ordinary remedies at law. See, also, American Glucose Co. v. New Jersey, 16 Stew. Eq. 280; Faure Electric Light Co.’s Case, 16 Stew. Eq. 411.

I will advise an order that the petition be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.J. Eq. 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-taxation-of-the-new-york-file-sharpening-co-njch-1887.