Case Name: HOBOKEN v. JERSEY CITY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1902-11-24
Citations: 68 N.J.L. 607
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOBOKEN v. JERSEY CITY.
Judges: Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
HOBOKEN v. JERSEY CITY.
Submitted July 5, 1902
Decided November 24, 1902.
Under section 6 of act of March 23d, 1900 (Pamph. L., p. 502), providing that a reduction of the apportionment of franchise taxed on filing the return required by section 3, shall not effect any change in the current apportionment, a writ of certiorari will not be granted to review such apportionment of taxes for the current year, since its allowance would be futile.
On application for writ of certiorari. On rule to show cause.
Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
Eor the prosecutor, William D. Edwards and James F. Minturn.
Eor the defendant, George W. Record.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The allowance of this writ would be futile, in view of section 6 of the act of March 23d, 1900. Pamph. L., p. 502. The object of the prosecutor is to affect the apportionment of taxes for the current year. The return mentioned in section 3 has been filed. The proviso of section 6 provides that such a reduction as is sought by the prosecutor shall not effect any change in the current apportionment. It is therefore useless to grant the writ. This renders it unnecessary to consider whether the writ would lie.
The rule to show cause is dismissed.