Case Name: JOSEPH W. SUTTON, APPELLANT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAURICE RIVER, IN THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1919-11-17
Citations: 93 N.J.L. 504
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEPH W. SUTTON, APPELLANT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAURICE RIVER, IN THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
JOSEPH W. SUTTON, APPELLANT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAURICE RIVER, IN THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, RESPONDENT.
Argued June 20, 1919
Decided November 17, 1919.
In view of the Ceriiorwri act of 1903, section 14, a review of the sale for unpaid taxes, and proceedings upon which, it was based, is limited to three years from the date of sale.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“The writ brings up a sale for unpaid taxes and proceedings on which such sale was based.
“Several interesting questions are argued, but, as we view the case, it 'is unnecessary to discuss them, as the matter is controlled by section 14 of the Certiorari act of 1903, limiting a review of this character to three years from the date of the sale. Bozarth v. Egg Harbor, 85 N. J. L. 412. The later case of Milsch, v. Riverside, 86 Id. 603, appears to be inapplicable, since the limitation is invoked by counsel in this court and no constitutional right seems to be involved.
“The writ will he dismissed.”
For the appellant, Walter H. Bacon.
For the resjoondent, Louis H. Miller.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will he affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Kalisch, White, Heppeni-ieimer; Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 11.
For reversal — Black, J. 1.