Case ID: nj-misc_5/html/1094-01.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

HACKENSACK WATER COMPANY, PROSECUTOR, v. THE STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT AND THE BOROUGH OF HAWORTH, RESPONDENTS.
    Submitted May 13, 1927
    Decided November 11, 1927.
    On rule to show cause why writ of certiorari should not issue.
    Before Justices Tkenohaed, Kalisoi-i and Katzenbach.
    For the prosecutor, Wright, Vcinder Burgh & McCarthy.
    
    For the respondents, Frank E. Eennessy.
    
   Per Curiam.

This case presents the same question as is presented in No. 281 of the May term, 1927. The only difference is that the property of the prosecutor assessed is in another taxing district, the borough of Haworth, in the county of Bergen. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in case No. 281 the rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.