TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Newark Homebuilders Co. v. Township of Bernards

NEWARK HOMEBUILDERS COMPANY, PROSECUTOR v. TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

Newark Homebuilders Co. v. Twp. of Bernards, 103 A. 692 (N.J. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 21, 1917
Judges
Swayze
Citations
103 A. 69290 N.J.L. 3611917 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 57
Headnotes
Tlie interest, which a landowner must pay on the amount of liis assessment for sidewalk improvements, does not, begin to ran until the amount of such assessment has been definitely ascer'lained.
Summary
On cerliorari.

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

Opinion of the Court — Swayze

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Swayze, J.

An assessment for sidewalk improvements was set aside and a new assessment ordered. The amounts to he assessed have been agreed upon, and. the only question now submitted to ns is from what time interest should run on the assessment. We think it should not begin to run until the *362 amount is ascertained by the court. Until that time the landowner is in no default; he cannot pay until the amount is known. That this is the rule seems to have been taken for granted in State, ex rel. Miller, v. Love, 37 N. J. L. 261. The cases cited on behalf of the township only hold that interest paid by the municipality is a part of the cost of the improvement. No doubt this is true, and we must assume, that the total cost required to be assessed includes all interest paid by the township. We cannot go back to February 4th, 1915, and, by allowing interest oil the assessment from that date, compel the property owner to pay interest on interest for a time antedating the day when the amount of his own liability becomes known, and on interest that may not have been paid by the township until long after that date and up to the present time. That would mean not only compound interest but compound interest in advance.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Yakima v. Snively248 P. 788 (Wash. 1926)

Most recent

  1. City of Yakima v. Snively248 P. 788 (Wash. 1926)

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