New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, 1949

Township of Hanover v. Town of Morristown

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Decided May 18, 1949 · The opinion of the court was delivered by BIGELOW, J.A.D.

66 A.2d 187; 4 N.J. Super. 22; 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 734 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Morris County Municipal Utility Authority v. Morris Township (New Jersey Tax Court 1994)
Hayes Homes Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Newark (New Jersey Tax Court 2003)
Essex County v. East Orange City (New Jersey Tax Court 1985)
Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen (New Jersey Tax Court 2013)
Center for Molecular Med. v. Tp. of Belleville (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003)
Harrisburg-Raleigh Airport Authority v. Department of Revenue (Ill. 1989)
Hudson County Improvement Authority v. Town of Kearny (New Jersey Tax Court 1989)
City of Egg Harbor City v. County of Atlantic County (New Jersey Tax Court 1988)
Bernards Township v. State (New Jersey Tax Court 1984)
Mahwah Township v. Bergen County (New Jersey Tax Court 1981)
City of Cheyenne v. Board of County Commissioners (Wyo. 1971)
CITY OF NEWARK v. Essex Cty. Bd. of Tax. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968)
North Jersey Police Radio Association, Inc. v. Borough of Pompton Lakes (3 Appeals) (New Jersey Tax Court 2022)
County of Essex v. City of East Orange (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
City of East Orange v. TP. OF LIVINGSTON (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968)
Thiokol Chem. Corp. v. MORRIS COUNTY BD. OF TAX. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1962)
State v. Daquino (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The question for decision is whether an airport, belonging to the Town of Morristown but located in the Township of Hanover, was subject to taxation in the years 1945, 1946 and 1947. In the absence of a clear expression of a legislative purpose that property of the State, or its political subdivisions shall be taxed, such property is excluded from the operation of general tax statutes. Under our present law, property of a municipality which is not "used for public purposes or for the preservation or exhibit of historical data, records or property" is taxable; but (subject to certain exceptions) property which is so used is exempt from taxation whether located within or without the municipality. R.S. 54:4-3.3. Essex County Park Commission v.West Orange, 77 N.J.L. 575 (E. A. 1908); Jersey City v.Blum, 101 N.J.L. 93 (E. A. 1924); Teaneck v. StateBoard, 110 N.J.L. 28; affirmed, 111 Id. 242 (1933); LandisTownship v. Division of Tax Appeals, 136 N.J.L. 310; affirmed,137 Id. 224 (1948). While an exemption from taxation granted to a private institution is strictly construed, the contrary is true of the exemption held by political bodies, since the latter are not taxed in a doubtful case. So the phrase "used for public purposes" should be liberally construed; it probably includes any municipal enterprise which the legislature has authorized. An airport is clearly a public purpose. R.S. 40:8-1, etc. The circumstance that Morristown leases hangar space and the right to service airplanes at the airport, and the fact that the town has conducted the enterprise at a small profit, do not detract from the public character of the airport.

Appellant contends that when the airport was established by Morristown and during the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, a municipality was authorized to construct or to maintain *Page 25 an airport only within its own borders. But it is our view thatR.S. 40:8-1 and P.L. 1941, c. 11, which is the statute under which Morristown acted in the final stages of the development of the airport, allow the construction and operation of a municipal airport outside of the bounds of the municipality. Hanover further urges that the land used for the airport is also held and used "for the purpose and for the protection of a public water supply" and is subject to taxation under 54:4-3.3. While the airport adjoins a tract of 29 acres on which are springs and wells, the source of the Morristown water supply, no part of the airport land is used or usable for water purposes either as a protection against pollution or as a source of water. Such is the uncontradicted evidence.

We affirm the judgment of the Division of Tax Appeals that the airport is not subject to local taxation.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.