Case Name: THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, AND STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1947-10-31
Citations: 136 N.J.L. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, AND STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, AND STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Submitted June 2, 1947
Decided October 31, 1947.
For the appellant, John J. Fallon and Otmar J. Pellet.
For the respondent, Isador Haber.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Colib, J.
This appeal brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the action of the Division of Tax Appeals in granting exemption for 1944 to lands and buildings of Stevens Institute of Technology located in the City of Hoboken.
The facts are fully developed in the opinion of the Supreme Court reported in 134 N. J. L. 594 and there is no purpose in repeating them. Among the buildings held to be exempt were Alexander House rented for $175 a month; Wittpenn House also rented for $175 per month; an unnamed cottage on Plot 5 rented for $50 or $55 per month and the Gate House rented for $50 per month; the tenants being faculty members.
The statute, R. S. 54:4-3.6, granting exemption from taxation to the buildings of colleges contains a proviso that "The buildings are not conducted for profit." In the instant case there is no evidence as to whether the charges for these four buildings are such as to return no profit to the Institute. It is a prerequisite to exemption that the owner establish facts entitling it to exemption and in this case Stevens Institute has not met that burden. In the absence of evidence on this important phase we must hold that under the proofs as submitted the four buildings named above are taxable.
The judgment under appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the record remanded to the Supreme Court to enter judgment in accordance herewith.
No costs are allowed.
For affirmance — Donges, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, JJ. 4.
For reversal — None.
For modification — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Hehek, Colie, Dill, Fbeund, McGeehan, McLean, Schet-TINO, JJ. 9.