Case ID: njl_130/html/0177-02.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

EDWARD SCHWARTZ, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. THE ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, THE CITY OF NEWARK, ANNA MYERS PURE FOODS, INC., FLINT & FULTON, INC., TENNERT ORCHARDS, INC., FELDMAN BROS. CO., WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., ATLANTIC TERMINALS, INC., AND MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO., INC., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
    Submitted February 13, 1943
    Decided May 13, 1943.
    
      For the prosecutor-appellant, Edward Schwartz, pro se.
    
    For City of Newark, Raymond Schroeder and Thomas L. Parsonnet.
    
    For Atlantic Terminals, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., McCarter, English & Egner (Conover English).
    
    For Flint & Fulton, Inc., Feldman Bros. Co., Anna Myers Pure Foods, Inc., Hobart, Minard & Cooper (Duane E. Minard and G. Addison Hobart).
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Colie in his opinion in the Supreme Court, and reported in 129 N. J. L. 129. In that case, however, it was stated': “We do not mean to approve the practice of by-passing the State Board of Tax Appeals, excepting where, as here, the single question presented involves a determination of the constitutionality of a legislative act.” The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on certiorari is not so limited. '

Chief Justice Brogan said in Dulce Power Co. v. Somerset County Board of Taxation, 124 N. J. L. 481 (at p. 486) : “A challenge to the jurisdiction of a special tribunal or irregularity in its proceeding need not, in the sound discretion of this court, await final judgment.” See, also, Mowery v. Camden, 49 N. J. L. 106; Potter v. Fritz, 54 Id. 436; Landis v. Vineland, 60 Id. 271; Croasdale v. Atlantic Quarter Sessions, 88 Id. 506; Public Service Railway Co. v. Camden, 95 Id. 190; Breen Iron Works v. Richardson, 115 Id. 305; Degenring v. Kimble, 115 Id. 379; Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 125 Id. 37; Licker v. Martin Box Co., 127 Id. 136.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — Parker, Bodine, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 8.

For reversal — The Chief Justice, Heher, Rafferty, JJ. 3.