holding that dictum is a statement by a court "not necessary to the decision being made[,]" which is entitled to due consideration but is not binding precedent
How later courts described this case
- holding that dictum is a statement by a court "not necessary to the decision being made[,]" which is entitled to due consideration but is not binding precedent
- defining dicta as a statement in a judicial opinion that “was not necessary to the decision then being made”
- “the burden of proof is upon him who asserts a tax exemption to establish the asserted right”
- Judicial dictum “is entitled to due consideration, but does not invoke the principle of stare decisis.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Oliphant, J.
(Dissenting.) I dissent for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Waehenfeld in his opinion for the former Supreme Court in this case. 137
N. J. L.
384.
For
reversal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Burling and Ackeeson—4.
For
affirmance—Justice Oliphant—1.