Citation Numbers: 47 N.J.L. 247
Judges: Scudder
Filed Date: 6/15/1885
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This writ of certiorari, by the inhabitants
Three reasons are assigned for reversal of this increased valuation. First, that the board of assessors did not proceed in the manner required by the statute to enable them to act in the premises. Section 12, [Rev., p. 1155,) after providing for the annual meeting of the board of assessors and the production of their duplicates and affidavits, says in the last clause: “And if any assessor shall be unable to attend at such meeting, it shall be his duty to send his duplicate with the affidavit aforesaid, and in case any assessor neglecting to attend, or to produce or send his duplicate and affidavit aforesaid, the majority of the assessors convened shall estimate the value of
It is also said that the estimate made by the assessors was wrong because the statute says it shall be the value of the property liable to assessment in the township or ward — that is, all of the property, real and personal, liable to assessment — but the assessors added $100,000 to the valuation of real estate only. In the words of the act, they are to make the estimate according to the best of their information and belief. Suppose it appeared to them that the assessment of personal property was high enough, but that the real estate was undervalued in comparison with the valuation of real estate in the other townships and wards, and that some addition should be made to equalize it, there would be no error in the increase. It is well known that while the constitution requires that property shall be assessed according to its true value, and personal property is usually thus estimated when found, there is a constant effort to undervalue real estate, and two-thirds or three-fourths, or some other measure, is often taken instead of its true value. If the assessors, believing the assessor of Bloomfield had overstated his undervaluation at the sum of $800,000, but thought the main deficiency was in the value of real estate, and added the comparatively small sum of $100,000, who can say, in the absence of proof, that any injustice has been done
The further objection, that the assessors did not proceed according to section 13 of the act, is not relevant, for the writ of certiorari only brings up the increase of tax under section 12, and not the adjustment of the proportion or quota of tax to be levied, which is provided for in section 13, as amended by the act of 1883. JPamph. L.,p. 192. These considerations also dispose of the second reason for reversal, that the resolution of the assessors was without lawful authority. The third reason, that the board of assessors was not lawfully constituted, has no force. The assessors assembled, and, acting as a board of assessors, were the elected representatives of the several ward and townships of the county, and as officers defacto could act in estimating the value of property liable to assessment. Whether they were officers de jure will not be determined in these proceedings, in which the assessors are not parties. Their acts are valid so far as the rights of the public and third persons are concerned. State v. Tolan, 4 Vroom 195, 201; State v. Collector of Ocean, 10 Vroom 75; Clark v. Ennis, 16 Vroom 69, 76.
The resolution of t-he board of assessors increasing the valuation of taxable real estate will be affirmed, with costs, including cost of printing.