TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gardner v. State

GARDNER, ASSESSOR OF JERSEY CITY v. State

Gardner v. State, 21 N.J.L. 557 (1845)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1845
Citations
21 N.J.L. 557
Cited by 0
Headnotes
1. The charter of the Paterson & Hudson River R. R. Company provides for the payment of certain taxes to the State, and then enacts, “ that no further or other tax or impost shall'be levied or assessed upon said Company.” Held, that the tax paid was a commutation for all taxes on such property as might necessarily be held for purposes reasonably incident to the enjoyment of the franchise. 2. That the charter exempts the company and its property held for such purposes from all other taxes, whether assessed for state, or for city or township purposes. 8. The Judges who concurred in the judgment below, excluded from sitting on the review in this court, although no argument had been had below, and no formal opinion delivered. 4. The court of Errors and Appeals is not a court of execution, and upon affirmance of the judgment of the court below, the record must be remitted to be there proceeded on, according to law.
Summary
The Writ of Error, in this case, brought up the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered upon a Certiorari in the name of the State, against Charles Gardner, assessor, (The President and Directors of the Paterson & Hudson River Rail Road Company,, prosecutors,) to which Certiorari the said assessor made the following return, viz: On Real Estate in Jersey City, on Wayne, Mercer, and Hudson streets, as follows: For State Tax, $1 80 For County Tax, 6 30 For City Tax, 54 75 $62 85 In and by the eighteenth section of the act entitled “An act to incorporate the Paterson and Hudson River Rail Road Company,” passed the 21st January, 1831, it was _enacted, that the said company, after the expiration of five years, should pay to the Treasurer of this State, yearly and every year, a tax of one-quarter of one per cent, upon their capital stock paid in, and yearly and every year, after the expiration of ten years, a tax of one-half of one per cent, upon the capital stock so paid in as aforesaid, and that no further or other tax or impost should be levied or assessed upon said company. The Supreme Court set aside the assessment, and therefore this writ of error was sued out by the authorities of Jersey City, in the name of the assessor, to review this decision. Upon moving this cause the question was raised as to which of the Justices of the Supreme Court were entitled to sit on the argument in this court on error. The case was decided in the Supreme Court without argument, in consequence of the point raised having been settled in that court by an opinion delivered in a previous cause. It was held by the court that those judges who sat upon the bench, and concurred in the judgment of the court below, were now excluded under the constitution from sitting upon th,e review, although no formal opinion had been delivered below. An affirmance or other judgment is a judicial opinion. No Justice of the Supreme Court, who has given a judicial opinion in the cause in favor of, or against an error complained of, (i. e. assigned for error,) can sit on error in this court on the hearing, and vote for its affirmance or reversal. He may, however, sit on the argument of preliminary motions, as the striking out an assignment of error, &c.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court

affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court. No written opinion was delivered, but the court held that the tax paid was not only a bonus for the chartered privileges of the company, but was also a commutation for such property as might necessarily be held for purposes reasonably incident to the enjoyment of the franchise. That the company was exempted from all other taxes, whether assessed for state, for city, or for township purposes.

*561 It was intimated by some of the judges, in delivering their opinions, that the exemption contemplated by the charter, did not extend beyond such property necessarily, or at any act reasonably incident to the enjoyment of the franchise. That' other property, not so incident to the enjoyment of the franchise, not necessary for the purposes contemplated by the charter, as property taken for the payment of debts, &e., did not come within the exemption, and might be liable to ordinary taxation.

For Affirmance — The Chancellor, Whitehead, Carpenter, Randolph, Robinson, Speer, Porter — 7.

For Reversal — Schenck, Spencer — 2.

Note. — Mr. Dayton asked the direction of the court as to the practice to be pursued, since the present organization of the Court of Errors and Appeals, upon an affirmance of a judgment on error. The court held that the former practice remained unchanged. That this court is not a court of execution, and that the record therefore must be remitted to the Supreme Court, to be there proceeded on according to law. That the 9th section of the act of 5th April, 1845, (since supplied, Rev. Stat. 194,) was not designed to change the practice of the court, but applied to such writs, as it had been customary to issue out of this court, previous to the passage of that act: such as writs of Certiorari to bring up records, writs of supersedeas, &c. See Anon. Spenc. R. 495; Rev. Stat. 194, § 11, 12; Ib. 201, § 6.

At the term of January, 1848, in the case of Carter v. Somers & Gleason, the court quashed a writ of error, because it did not purport to issue out of the Court of Chancery, and because it did not appear that it had been presented to the court to which directed.

Cited in State v. Brannin, 8 Zab. 499; State v. Bently, Id. 537; State v. Comm’rs of Mansfield, Id. 513; State v. Powers, 4 Zab. 402; State v. Leester, 5 Dutch. 542; State v. Hancock, 6 Vr. 545 -548.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list