TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Drew v. Flynn

WILLIAM M. DREW, RELATOR v. THOMAS FLYNN, RECEIVER OF TAXES OF THE CITY OF PATERSON

Drew v. Flynn, 84 A. 1061 (N.J. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 11, 1912
Judges
Gummere
Citations
84 A. 106183 N.J.L. 154 Vroom 11912 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 28
Headnotes
An officer making sale of lands under tlie Martin act for unpaid taxes- and assessments is a mere municipal agent, having no authority except that vested in him by the statute, and is without power to make a sale except in strict compliance with the provisions-of the statute with relation to the price which the land must bring.
Summary
On demurrer to return to writ of alternative mandamus.

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

Opinion of the Court — Gummere

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Gummere, Chief Justice.

Drew, the relator, seeks by this proceeding to compel the receiver of taxes of the city of *2 Paterson to deliver to him a certificate of sale for certain •lands purchased by him at a public sale held for unpaid taxes and assessments under the Martin act. The return shows that by mistake the receiver of taxes advertised and sold these lands for less than tire amount of unpaid taxes due thereon, the difference between s.uch amount and the price bid by "Drew being somewhat in excess of $1,000. It further shows that by tire fourth section of the supplement to the Martin act, passed April 24th, 1888 (Pamph. L., p. 529), the officer making sale of lands under the act for unpaid taxes and assessments shall sell the same “at public auction to the highest bidder, but not for less than the amount due upon tire same with interest and costs.” The demurrer admits the truth of the facts stated in the return. On these facts the sale was invalid. The receiver of taxes, in making it, was a mere municipal agent, having no authority except that vested in him by the statute, and without power to make a sale except in strict compliance with the provisions of such statute with relation to the price which the'land must bring. Having exceeded his authority in striking off the lands to Drew for a sum less than the total amount of taxes dire thereon, it goes without saying that this court will not compel him to consummate his original wrong-doing by ordering him to deliver a certificate of sale for such unauthorized price.

The defendant is entitled to judgment on tire demurrer.

How later courts describe this case

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

1928: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State Mortgage Corp. v. State9 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App. 1928)

Most recent

  1. State Mortgage Corp. v. State9 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. App. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on 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