Case Name: LUCKENBACH TERMINALS, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, AND WILLIAM J. PURDY, COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1938-08-11
Citations: 120 N.J.L. 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: LUCKENBACH TERMINALS, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, AND WILLIAM J. PURDY, COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
LUCKENBACH TERMINALS, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, AND WILLIAM J. PURDY, COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, RESPONDENTS.
Argued January 20, 1938 —
Decided August 11, 1938.
Before Justices Case and Donges.
For the prosecutor, Kelsey & Ludwig (Clarence Kelsey).
For the respondents, Nicholas S. Schloeder.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Case, J.
This is on the return of the writ which issued in accordance with our findings reported in 118 N. J. L. 348. The major facts are there stated. The error at the tax sale as found by us was tbe inclusion of an interest charge $1,000 in excess of that allowed by law. It is not denied that that error exists; indeed, the municipality has, throughout the litigation, admitted it. The municipality now proposes that the court enter a rule whereby the municipality shall confess judgment in certiorari and that the amount of taxes and assessments justly due be determined as shown upon a schedule now submitted by the respondents. The schedule is not clear to us. It contains unexplained variations other than that of the $1,000 tax error from the original schedule. The amount for which the lands were sold was $85,735.39. The deduction fo the Interest overcharge of $1,000 would bring the figure down to $84,735.39; and the addition of interest meanwhile accrued would somewhat increase the last mentioned sum. But the total figure now suggested by respondents is $84,092.25. It is obvious from these totals that there are changes other than the $1,000 error in interest. Inasmuch as the prosecutor opposes the procedure thus suggested, we think that, with this confusion, the sale had best be set aside. If there is an error in the calculation of the tax itself as the suggested schedule appears to indicate, that will need to be otherwise corrected because the present writ, by its terms, excludes a review of the assessment of the tax. That question is not before us.
The tax sale will he set aside, without costs.