State ex rel. Phelps v. Borough of Fort Lee

188 A. 689, 14 N.J. Misc. 895, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 220
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedDecember 15, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 A. 689 (State ex rel. Phelps v. Borough of Fort Lee) 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
State ex rel. Phelps v. Borough of Fort Lee, 188 A. 689, 14 N.J. Misc. 895, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 220 (N.J. 1936).

Opinion

Bodine, J.

On December 1st, 1932, the First National Bank of Fort Lee, then engaged in business, lent to the borough of Fort Lee the sum of $40,000, upon tax revenue notes of that date, due March 1st, 1933, issued against delinquent taxes for 1931. There is now due thereon the sum of $36,857.16 and interest at six per cent. On the same day, the bank lent to the borough the sum of $65,000 on two tax anticipation notes due March 1st, 1933. There is due on these notes the principal sum of $60,000 with interest at six per cent. Since these two notes matured after December 31st, 1932, they are to be treated under the law as tax revenue notes.

On October 14th, 1935, at the behest of a number of persons, holders of bond obligations of the borough of Fort Lee, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued requiring the borough to show cause why it should not include in the amount to be assessed, levied and collected by taxation for the 3rear 1936, money sufficient to pay the sum found to be due by the municipal finance commission as in default on April 30th, 1935, with interest. The return sets forth that the municipal finance commission functioning in said munici[897]*897pality, pursuant to chapter 330 (Pamph. L. 1931, p. 815; N. J. Stat. Annual 1931, § 48-* 110), has found the borough is in default in the sum of $1,562,567.16 for principal upon its obligations, and $498,236.90, accrued interest. The bonds and notes specified in the writs are admitted to be outstanding obligations. It is stated in the return that the total amount, which is possible to raise for the year 1936 by taxation, is approximately $645,000; that it will be possible to collect and raise available moneys in that year in the sum of $681,369.89 of which it is estimated $585,069.89 will be raised by the collection of taxes and approximately $96,200 from miscellaneous revenues; that of the expected sum of $681,369.89, $183,000 must be paid on account of local school taxes; $44,000 must be paid on account of state taxes for the year 1936, and $100,050 must be paid on account of county taxes for the year 1936, leaving a balance available for municipal purposes of $354,070, of which $185,000 is necessary for current economic operating expenses of the borough, and $165,586.86 for debt service; that under the proposed tax levy with other expected receipts there will result funds for a possible payment to or on account of bondholders and other creditors in the sum of $225,586.86. The return also shows that there has been accumulated in a reserve trust fund, because no interest has been paid for some years on municipal obligations, the sum of $177,912.04. These moneys, together with the funds to be realized from current and delinquent taxes, are available for equal and ratable payments on account of interest indebtedness, if preference or priority claims shall not prevail.

The borough sought that it might set aside a reserve for delinquent taxes of not less than $64,000 and an appropriation for debt service of not less than $165,586.86, and such other additional amounts as will increase the tax levy for the year 1936 to an amount not less than $645,000 and not more than $655,000, which after expense of collection will leave a balance of not less than $131,586.86 for payment pro rala on the amount of the indebtedness of the borough.

John Kenlon and Lester C. Burdett, trustees for creditors and depositors of the First National Bank of Fort Lee and [898]*898holders of the notes in question having intervened in the proceedings, demurred to the return stating: “1. By force of the statute in such case made and provided, these intervening-petitioners are entitled to priority of payment ahead of general obligations of the borough of Port Lee as in said alternative writ of mandamus stated. 2. By force of the statute in such case made and provided, the tax revenue note and the tax anticipation notes held by these intervening petitioners are prior obligations of the borough of Port Lee ahead of its other outstanding obligations and the tax revenue note held by these intervening petitioners issued against delinquent tax revenues of 1931 is entitled to payment out of the revenues received by the borough for said year or out of such funds as are in the hands of the borough in priority to other obligations of the borough and the tax anticipation notes held by these intervening petitioners are entitled to priority of payment out of the revenues received by the said borough for the year 1932 against which anticipated revenues the said notes were issued, or out of such funds as are in the hands of the borough in priority to its other obligations. 3. By force of the statute in such case made and provided, the borough of Port Lee and the municipal finance commission was legally obligated to provide in the budget of the borough of Port Lee for the year 1935, an appropriation for the payment of the said note ahead of and in priority to the other obligations of the said borough, and the said borough and the said commission were legally obligated to pay the said note before the end of the year 1935, and these intervening petitioners are entitled to payment of-said note ahead of other obligations of the borough out of such moneys as are now in the possession of said borough. 4. By force of the statute in such case made and provided, these intervening petitioners are entitled to a provision to be made by the borough of Port Lee and the municipal finance commission in the budget of the said borough for the year 1936 for the payment of the tax anticipation notes held by these intervening petitioners issued against anticipated revenues for the year 1932, and are entitled to payment of the said tax anticipation notes before the end of the year 1936, ahead of and in priority to the other obligations of the borough.”

[899]*899This court issued a peremptory writ directing the borough to include in its tax levy for the year 1936 the sum of $132,000 for debt service, reserving until now the decision on the demurrer of the intervening trustees, as to whether the $132,000 to be reserved for debt service should be paid to all relators and interveno rs pro rala and all other creditors of the municipality, or whether the trustees were entitled to have full payments of their obligations.

It is the contention of the trustees, the holders of the obligations sold to the Fort Lee bank, that there are funds sufficient to retire their notes, but if not that they are entitled to priority of payment from the moneys appropriated for debt service ahead of the general bond creditors of the borough.

Fort Lee was incorporated as a borough in 1904 (Pamph. L., p. 398), and is governed by the general act relating to boroughs. Pamph. L. 1897, p. 285. Under section 32' of that act, “the council may borrow money temporarily in the name of the borough in anticipation of taxes or assessments, not exceeding three-fourths of such anticipated taxes or assessments.”

In 1906 (Pamph. L., ch. 315, p. 697; 3 Comp. Stat., p. 3667), an act was passed permitting boroughs to borrow in anticipation of taxes. Borrowing was limited to ninety per cent, of the taxes for the year, exclusive of county taxes. The act provided that the notes issued in anticipation of taxes were to be paid and satisfied as soon as moneys raised by taxation were in hand. The 1906 act was repealed by Pamph. L. 1918, ch. 199, p. 734. In the meantime, however, chapter 192 of Pamph. L. 1917, p. 548; (Cum. Supp. Comp. Stat., 1911-1924, p.

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

Related

Kessler v. Tarrats
466 A.2d 581 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)
New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority v. McCrane
292 A.2d 545 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1972)
Faitoute Iron & Steel Co. v. City of Asbury Park
316 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A. 689, 14 N.J. Misc. 895, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-phelps-v-borough-of-fort-lee-nj-1936.