Trenton Masonic Temple Ass'n v. City of Trenton
This text of 158 A. 395 (Trenton Masonic Temple Ass'n v. City of Trenton) 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.
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the per curiam, opinion if that court, ubi supra, except as herein noted. It is intimated obiter in that opinion, that “if any one of the Masonic organizations owned and occupied the whole building, the exemption would occur.” This proposition was not a necessary element in the decision, and we deem it best to reserve any expression of opinion on it in this court until it is directly presented.
Apart from this, we concur in the views expressed by the *420 Supreme Court, and that concurrence leads to an affirmance of the judgment under review.
For affirmance — The Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, Kerney, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
158 A. 395, 108 N.J.L. 419, 1932 N.J. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trenton-masonic-temple-assn-v-city-of-trenton-nj-1932.