Case ID: njl_87/html/0338-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRITZ WALSCH, RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER ET AL., APPELLANTS.
    Argued November 30, 1914—
    Decided March 1, 1915.
    On-appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following memorandum by Mr. Justice Parker was filed:
    “This is a certiorari attacking the validity of a sale for assessments in the borough of Edgewater.
    “The ground of attack is that the sale was held more than two years after the imposition of the assessment. This is conceded to be tlie case; and it also plainly appears that the first advertisement of sale was not published until one or two days after the expiration of the two years’ period. Section 45 of the Borough act gives the power of sale, limited, as I read it, as two years from the date of confirmation of an assessment, and refers to the Tax act for matters of procedure. Section 60 of the Tax act is the only qualification urged on behalf of the borough, and the suggestion is that the provision requiring payment to be made -as a condition of setting aside the sale might he insisted upon in this case. The language of the act is this:
    “ ‘Where the assessment itself is valid and the tax (in this case the assessment) is justly due, no sale shall be set aside except -on condition that the amount due shall be paid to the holder of the (tax) lien.’
    “The answer seems to be that there is no tax lien and no assessment lien; the lien of the assessment expired with the two 3rears, and it would seem that this section is not operative in eases where the tax or assessment lien has expired by limitation.
    “Tire result must be, therefore, the setting aside of thi-s sale.
    “The -writ brings up only the sale and therefore no judgment is entered with reference to the assessment itself.”
    
      Eor the respondent, William E. Ellis.
    
    Eor the appellants, Harry B. Brockhurst.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered bj' Mr. Justice Parker, in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Swayzb, Trenciiard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Bogert, Viiedbnburgi-i, Whtte, JJ. 11.

For rev ersa l—Xone.