Case Name: THE CITY OF NEWARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN (A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY), AND J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1937-04-15
Citations: 15 N.J. Misc. 368
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE CITY OF NEWARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN (A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY), AND J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
THE CITY OF NEWARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN (A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY), AND J. H. THAYER-MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS.
Argued January 20, 1937
Decided April 15, 1937.
Before Justices Case and Perskie.
Por the prosecutor, Jules E. Tepper, Joseph A. Ward and Frank A. Boettner.
Por the respondent city of Hoboken, Edward P. Stout.
Por the respondent borough of Roseland, Spaulding Frazer.
Por the respondent borough of Runnemede, Harry Gross-man and Joseph Varbalow.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The city of Newark seeks a writ of certiorari to review the action of the state board of tax appeals in setting aside, as illegal, the apportionment of the gross receipts tax of the Public Service Electric and Gas Company made by the state tax commissioner for the year 1935, and referring the matter back to the commissioner for the purpose of making a legal reapportionment. The proceedings before the board were initiated by the city of Hoboken. The board has jurisdiction of the subject-matter. West Orange v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 115 N. J. L. 396; 180 Atl. Rep. 770; affirmed, 116 N. J. L. 414; 184 Atl. Rep. 735. Therefore, under the ordinary procedure, certiorari should not be awarded until after final judgment. City of Plainfield v. McGrath, 117 N. J. L. 348; 188 Atl. Rep. 733. We see no reason for following another course.
The application is denied, with costs to the appearing respondents above named.