Opinion

Town of Kearny v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

  • 103 N.J.L. 541
  • 138 A. 569
  • 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 404
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Filed
Sep 16, 1927
Status
Published
Author
Parker
On the bench
Parker, Black, Campbell
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.5%

The opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

On

certiorari

to a judgment of the state board, reducing the valuation for taxation of the plant of the Congoleum-Nairn Company, the town of Kearny, as prosecutor, was successful to the extent of obtaining the judgment of this court that the state board proceeded illegally in reaching its judgment, and that such judgment be set aside.

Kearny

v.

State Board,

4

N. J. Mis. R.

834. This normally required

*542

that the case go back to the state board for a retrial conducted according to the principles laid down. The prosecutor, preferring the direct action of this court, applied to have us fix the valuation, which we declined to do

{ante, p.

36), and on appeal our refusal was sustained.

Post, p.

699. Then the prosecutor applied for award of costs in the Supreme Court

ad interim

as the successful litigant in that court.

It is plain that costs should not go as against the state board, because it is a state agency, not to mention the fact that it is the statutory tribunal whose judgment was reversed.

Tenement House Board

v.

Schlechter,

83

N. J. L.

88;

Rayner

v.

Benjamin,

88

Id.

83, 86;

Manufacturers’ Land Co.

v.

Board,

98

Id.

638, 642.

As to the Congoleum-Nairn Company, the case is within the well-settled rule that where a judgment is reversed in an appellate court, and a new trial awarded, where the reversal is on account of error in the trial court, and such reversal does not finally determine any issue between the parties, costs should not be awarded at law in the appellate court.

Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.

v.

McFarland,

44

N. J. L.

674;

Lynch

v.

Public Service Railway Co.,

83

Id.

783;

Reed

v.

Public Service Railway Co.,

98

Id.

356.

As noted in the last case, the matter is within our discretion. Ros

enkranz

v.

Wolf,

87

N. J. L.

311. But this seems conspicuously a case in which that discretion should not be exercised in favor of an award of costs at this stage, as against the Congoleum-Nairn Company, which was in no way responsible for the procedural action taken by the state board.

The application is therefore denied.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.