Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield

221 A.2d 47, 91 N.J. Super. 469
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided June 17, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

91 N.J. Super. 469 (1966)
221 A.2d 47

KEITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD AND JOHN BORI, TAX COLLECTOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 13, 1966.
Decided June 17, 1966.

Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

Mr. John T. Keefe argued the cause for appellants (Mr. Edward J. Santoro, attorney).

Mr. Robert Silver argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Bilder, Bilder, Silver & McCurley, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Gerofsky in his opinion.

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

Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield, 221 A.2d 47, 91 N.J. Super. 469 (N.J. Ct. App. 1966).

221 A.2d 47 (Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Diament v. Borough of Fort Lee
3 N.J. Tax 70 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1981)