Court Opinion

ID: 9636650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:36:39.705332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:47.731561
License: Public Domain

Case, J.
(dissenting). B. S. 54:5—52 is a statute upon the admission of evidence, not upon pleading. The deposition submitted at the motion to strike is strongly indicative of *159fraud by the collector of taxes, whose deputy executed the tax certificate, and supports the theory that the paper relied upon by defendants is an instrument fraudulently substituted for the original tax certificate. It further avers that the deponent announced, at the sale of the supposed tax certificate to the highest bidder and in the presence of representatives of respondent Seaside Gardens, Inc., that “the certificate being offered for sale was a fictitious certificate procured through fraud and deceit.” There was an adequate statement of self-interest in the collector of taxes to form a motive for the alleged fraudulent substitution.
In my opinion there was enough produced in the way of allegation of fraud and of notice to the present holder previous to the purchase by it of the certificate to carry the litigation to trial so that the plaintiff might have the benefit of subpoena to fortify his proofs. - Speed in the disposition of causes should not be at the cost of shutting out a litigant who presents a plausible case of fraud and is deprived of his day in court where he may complete evidence on that difficult subject.
Heher, J., joins in this dissent.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Vandekbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Wach-eneeld, Burling and Ackerson—5.
For reversal—Justices Case and Heher—2.