# City of Garfield v. State Board of Tax Appeals

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · September 14, 1944 · 132 N.J.L. 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3562898

## Case

- **Full name:** City of Garfield, a Municipal Corporation, Prosecutor-Appellant, v. State Board of Tax Appeals and Forstmann Woolen Co., Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** September 14, 1944
- **Citations:** 132 N.J.L. 153; 39 A.2d 105; 1944 N.J. LEXIS 232
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Bodine
- **Judges:** Bodine
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3562898

## Opinion text

The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
The case involves an assessment for taxes upon real and personal property of the Forstmann Woolen Company situate in the City of Garfield. The company maintained plants in three other municipalities in Bergen County. The presumption is in favor of. the findings of the State Board and such findings will not be disturbed in the Supreme Court unless it appears that the Board was in error.
Tennant
v.
Jersey City,
122
N. J. L.
174;
affirmed,
123
Id.
200;
Gannon
v.
State Board,
123
Id.
450.
The Supreme Court, in an exhaustive opinion reported in 131
N. J. L.
364, reviewed the evidence and found the value of both the real and personal property to be in accordance with the findings of the State Board. The proofs offered by the company before the State Board and by deposition on
certiorari
sustained such conclusion. The findings of fact by the Supreme Court, when supported by the evidence, are conclusive in this court.
Lehigh & Wilkes Barre Coal Co.
v.
Borough of Junction, &c.,
75
Id.
922.
It is argued that the Supreme Court did not consider, in determining the value of personal property, certain intan
*154
gibles. There is no proof that the intangibles had a
situs
in the City of Garfield. Because some part of them was not assessed elsewhere is no reason they should be assessed in the City of Garfield in the absence of evidence that they had a
situs
there.
The other arguments have been considered but are without merit.
The judgment under review is affirmed, but without costs.
For affirmance
— The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Parker, Bodine, Hbher, Perskib, Colie, Dear, Wells, Rae' eerty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.
For reversal
— None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3562898. Public record. Not legal advice.