Lippincott v. Township of Pensauken

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Lippincott v. Township of Pensauken

40 A. 625, 62 N.J.L. 177, 33 Vroom 177, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 63

DecidedJune 13, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A. 625 (Lippincott v. Township of Pensauken) 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

Lippincott v. Township of Pensauken, 40 A. 625, 62 N.J.L. 177, 33 Vroom 177, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 63 (N.J. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

[178]*178The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

This certiorari is prosecuted in aid of an action of ejectment, and its object is to set aside a tax sale made by John Thomas, collector of the township of Pensauken, Camden county, to Mary F. Hollinshed, on September 11th, 1894, and the tax deed based thereon, dated November 2d, 1896, recorded in Book No. 217 of Deeds for Camden county, page 473, &c.

The sale was illegal because neither the warrant to sell nor the return thereto was recorded by the township clerk in “the record of tax sales,” as required by paragraphs 332 and 336 of the Tax act. Gen. Stat., p. 3275. Landis v. Vineland, 32 Vroom 424.

The defendants contend that this defect is cured by the act of March 25th, 1881. Gen. Stat., p. 3406. But we think that “ the township book of minutes” therein mentioned is not “the record of tax sales” referred to in the sections above cited.

The sale and deed must therefore be set aside, with costs to the prosecutors against the township only.

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