Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 N.J.L. 308

State v. Koster

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 15, 1876

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1876-02-15

<p>1. Upon the minutes of the proceedings of the town meeting of the township of W., it appeared that the sum of §400 was to be raised for township purposes, and “ for notes and bonds, to be left to the committee.” Under this authority the committee ordered §1212 to be raised. Meld, — that the town meeting could not delegate its authority to the township committee.</p> <p>2. The portion of the assessment for notes and bonds set aside.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1953

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Reed, J.

¶2This writ brings up an assessment made against the property of the prosecutor, lying in Washington township, in the county of Burlington.

¶3The first insistment is, that the property of the prosecutor was assessed too high.

¶4It does not appear that this property was assessed for more than its true value, but that other property in the township was assessed too low.

¶5*309We cannot set aside the assessment against the prosecutor on that ground.

¶6The remedy for such discrepancy is indicated in The State v. Randolph, 1 Dutcher 431.

¶7A portion of the tax levied for township purposes was clearly unauthorized. Upon the record of the annual town meeting of March 10th, 1874, the following appears : “For township purposes, $400. For notes and bonds, to be left to the town committee.”

¶8Assuming the power of the town meeting to raise money for notes and bonds by special acts, {Laws of 1864, 297 ; and 1865, 268,) they had no power to delegate that authority to the township committee. Dillon on Mun. Corp., § 60 ; State, Verhule, pros., v. Saalman, 8 Vroom 156.

¶9If it had appeared that a certain instalment of notes or bonds matured each year, and the words on the record meant that the true calculation of such amount should be left to the committee, it might come within the rule in The State v. Sickles, 4 Zab. 125, as the amount ordered to be raised could be made certain by mere computation.

¶10The clear intention of the town meeting, in this instance was, to leave the amount to be raised in the discretion of the committee. This they could not do. The amount assessed for township purposes, other than the $400, was unauthorized. There was the sum of $1612 assessed. Of that, $1212 was assessed improperly.

¶11The value of the property of the prosecutor as assessed, was $31,000. The entire ratables of the township were $99,379. His proportion of the $1212 was, by calculation, $378.

¶12As to that sum assessed as a part of the township tax, the assessment is reversed. The balance of the assessment is affirmed.

/38/njl/308 · .json · Public domain