Margolis v. Interboro Holding Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Margolis v. Interboro Holding Corp.

18 A.2d 23, 125 N.J.L. 614, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 7, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 A.2d 23 (Margolis v. Interboro Holding Corp.) 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

Margolis v. Interboro Holding Corp., 18 A.2d 23, 125 N.J.L. 614, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. He had been the owner of property in Eairlawn sold for taxes. The defendant purchased the tax sale certificate. Plaintiff, having a contract to sell the property, desired to redeem. Defendant exacted $1,359.85, which included items to the extent of $47.44 to which it is said the defendant was not entitled. Payment was made under circumstances which the learned District Court judge found constituted duress.

The circumstances seem to have been that the plaintiff had to obtain title that day. But even so the situation was of his own making. Had he proceeded earlier he could have made redemption by paying the correct amount to the borough collector. N. J. S. A. 54:5-54. He was not obliged to pay the amount claimed, except for his own advantage. The assertions that the amount claimed was paid under protest made it no less Voluntary for which there can be no recovery. McCrory Stores Corp. v. Braunstein, 99 N. J. L. 166. This is not the case of a payment of a tax under protest, but the payment of an amount of monejr claimed due. It is not necessary to determine whether the exaction was proper. When the plaintiff decided that he would not pursue his legal rights to settle the amount, he cannot claim that payment was under compulsion.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Bodine, J.

The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. He had been the owner of property in Eairlawn sold for taxes. The defendant purchased the tax sale certificate. Plaintiff, having a contract to sell the property, desired to redeem. Defendant exacted $1,359.85, which included items to the extent of $47.44 to which it is said the defendant was not entitled. Payment was made under circumstances which the learned District Court judge found constituted duress.

The circumstances seem to have been that the plaintiff had to obtain title that day. But even so the situation was of his own making. Had he proceeded earlier he could have made redemption by paying the correct amount to the borough collector. N. J. S. A. 54:5-54. He was not obliged to pay the amount claimed, except for his own advantage. The assertions that the amount claimed was paid under protest made it no less Voluntary for which there can be no recovery. McCrory Stores Corp. v. Braunstein, 99 N. J. L. 166. This is not the case of a payment of a tax under protest, but the payment of an amount of monejr claimed due. It is not necessary to determine whether the exaction was proper. When the plaintiff decided that he would not pursue his legal rights to settle the amount, he cannot claim that payment was under compulsion.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.2d 23, 125 N.J.L. 614, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margolis-v-interboro-holding-corp-nj-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack