State v. Conover

42 A. 838, 63 N.J.L. 191, 34 Vroom 191, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 154
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 27, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 A. 838 (State v. Conover) 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 v. Conover, 42 A. 838, 63 N.J.L. 191, 34 Vroom 191, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 154 (N.J. 1899).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Collins, J.

The prosecutor, a borough in Warren county, owns a farm within the township of Mount Olive, Morris county, whereon it maintains a reservoir for the storing of the waters of a stream running through the farm. Pipes laid from the reservoir supply the borough with water, from the disposition of which it derives pecuniary profit. In 1897 this property was assessed for taxation by Mount Olive, and the present certiorari attacks the assessment.

The state of the case does not disclose any legal authority for the holding by the borough of land outside its territorial limits, but whether, with or without authority, property held for public use is exempt from taxation under our General Tax law, which directs exemption of “the property of the counties, townships, cities and boroughs of this .state.” Gen. Stat., p. 3320, pi. 200. This has been directly decided as to county holdings by this court and the court of last resort. Camden County v. Washington Township, 31 Vroom 367; [192]*192affirmed, 32 Id. 695. Of course, boroughs come within the scope of the decision.

It is sought to restrict the exemption by denying it where pecuniary profit is derived from the extra-territorial holding, but in this case such profit is merely incidental to the public use, and therefore, by the same decision, is not to be considered.

As far as this court is concerned the exemption must be held absolute, irrespective of the character or use of the property or its revenues. Newark v. Belleville, 32 Vroom 455. The question is legislative, not judicial.

The assessment and tax are therefore set aside, with costs.

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

Related

County of Anoka v. City of St. Paul
261 N.W. 368 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
City of Traverse City v. Township of Blair
157 N.W. 81 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Stiles v. Village of Newport
56 A. 662 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 A. 838, 63 N.J.L. 191, 34 Vroom 191, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-conover-nj-1899.