Mayor of Jersey v. Huber

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mayor of Jersey v. Huber

101 A. 378, 90 N.J.L. 692, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 404

DecidedJune 18, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A. 378 (Mayor of Jersey v. Huber) 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

Mayor of Jersey v. Huber, 101 A. 378, 90 N.J.L. 692, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 404 (N.J. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment should, be affirmed, for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its per curiam opinion.

Tt is-argued here that the land and pipe line are not exclusively used for water to be supplied and used in Jersey City, but that part of the water obtained through it is sold to corporations and individuals outside of the taxing district, and* therefore the exemption fails. To this we do not agree.

The aqueduct was not constructed as a business venture but to take care of the present and future needs of the city and its inhabitants. The pipe was made larger than was immediately necessary in order to provide for growth of the city. The sale of water not at present needed is merely incidental, and the fact of such present sale does not negative the use of the land for the purpose of public water-supply and of the accompanying exemption, so long as said land is reasonably needed for the present: or reasonably anticipated future supply of Jersey City for purely public purposes. In Newark v. Clinton, 49 N. J. L. 370, there was a separation between the tract used for public purposes and the rest of the land, which is not the condition here.

[694]*694For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment should, be affirmed, for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its per curiam opinion.

Tt is-argued here that the land and pipe line are not exclusively used for water to be supplied and used in Jersey City, but that part of the water obtained through it is sold to corporations and individuals outside of the taxing district, and* therefore the exemption fails. To this we do not agree.

The aqueduct was not constructed as a business venture but to take care of the present and future needs of the city and its inhabitants. The pipe was made larger than was immediately necessary in order to provide for growth of the city. The sale of water not at present needed is merely incidental, and the fact of such present sale does not negative the use of the land for the purpose of public water-supply and of the accompanying exemption, so long as said land is reasonably needed for the present: or reasonably anticipated future supply of Jersey City for purely public purposes. In Newark v. Clinton, 49 N. J. L. 370, there was a separation between the tract used for public purposes and the rest of the land, which is not the condition here.

[694]*694For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A. 378, 90 N.J.L. 692, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-jersey-v-huber-nj-1917.