Luckenbach Terminals, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Luckenbach Terminals, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen

1 A.2d 60, 120 N.J.L. 526, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163

DecidedAugust 11, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.2d 60 (Luckenbach Terminals, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen) 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

Luckenbach Terminals, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen, 1 A.2d 60, 120 N.J.L. 526, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163 (N.J. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Case, J.

This is on the return of the writ which issued in accordance with our findings reported in 118 N. J. L. 348. The major facts are there stated. The error at the tax sale *527 as found by us was tbe inclusion of an interest charge $1,000 in excess of that allowed by law. It is not denied that that error exists; indeed, the municipality has, throughout the litigation, admitted it. The municipality now proposes that the court enter a rule whereby the municipality shall confess judgment in certiorari and that the amount of taxes and assessments justly due be determined as shown upon a schedule now submitted by the respondents. The schedule is not clear to us. It contains unexplained variations other than that of the $1,000 tax error from the original schedule. The amount for which the lands were sold was $85,735.39. The deduction fo the Interest overcharge of $1,000 would bring the figure down to $84,735.39; and the addition of interest meanwhile accrued would somewhat increase the last mentioned sum. But the total figure now suggested by respondents is $84,092.25. It is obvious from these totals that there are changes other than the $1,000 error in interest. Inasmuch as the prosecutor opposes the procedure thus suggested, we think that, with this confusion, the sale had best be set aside. If there is an error in the calculation of the tax itself as the suggested schedule appears to indicate, that will need to be otherwise corrected because the present writ, by its terms, excludes a review of the assessment of the tax. That question is not before us.

The tax sale will he set aside, without costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Case, J.

This is on the return of the writ which issued in accordance with our findings reported in 118 N. J. L. 348. The major facts are there stated. The error at the tax sale *527 as found by us was tbe inclusion of an interest charge $1,000 in excess of that allowed by law. It is not denied that that error exists; indeed, the municipality has, throughout the litigation, admitted it. The municipality now proposes that the court enter a rule whereby the municipality shall confess judgment in certiorari and that the amount of taxes and assessments justly due be determined as shown upon a schedule now submitted by the respondents. The schedule is not clear to us. It contains unexplained variations other than that of the $1,000 tax error from the original schedule. The amount for which the lands were sold was $85,735.39. The deduction fo the Interest overcharge of $1,000 would bring the figure down to $84,735.39; and the addition of interest meanwhile accrued would somewhat increase the last mentioned sum. But the total figure now suggested by respondents is $84,092.25. It is obvious from these totals that there are changes other than the $1,000 error in interest. Inasmuch as the prosecutor opposes the procedure thus suggested, we think that, with this confusion, the sale had best be set aside. If there is an error in the calculation of the tax itself as the suggested schedule appears to indicate, that will need to be otherwise corrected because the present writ, by its terms, excludes a review of the assessment of the tax. That question is not before us.

The tax sale will he set aside, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.2d 60, 120 N.J.L. 526, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckenbach-terminals-inc-v-township-of-north-bergen-nj-1938.