Case ID: njl_97/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDWARD B. HOLLINSHEAD, APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF OAKLYN, RESPONDENT.
    Argued November 21, 1921
    Decided February 9, 1922.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam■ was filed:
    “The controversy in this case is over an assessment of $10,200 on buildings and improvements. There are seven reasons in one case presented by the prosecutor for setting aside the assessment. The first two relate to the construction of a budget and tax ordinance. Tine -third, fourth and fifth relate to the change of the assessment list and duplicate; sixth', because no public advertisement was given by the assessor of bis complete assessment list and duplicate. In the second ease four additional reasons are added.
    “Our reading of the record in these cases does not satisfy us that the prosecutor has established his points as facts or that the assessment is in excess of the true value of the property.
    “The assessment in each case is affirmed, with costs.”
    
      For the appellant, Herbert A. Drake.
    
    For the respondent, Sydney T. Smith.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenohard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Katzisnbach, Williams, Gardner, Van Buskirk, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.