From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Moriarty

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Sep 16, 1968
102 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

Argued September 9, 1968 —

Decided September 16, 1968.

Appeal from The Superior Court, Law Division, 97 N.J. Super. 458, 235 A.2d 247.

Before Judges GOLDMANN, KOLOVSKY and CARTON.

Mr. David M. Satz, Jr., United States Attorney, argued the cause for claimants-appellants ( Mr. Mitchell Rogovin, Assistant Attorney General, and Messrs. Lee A. Jackson, Crombie J.D. Garrett and Bennet N. Hollander, Department of Justice, attorneys; Mr. Kenneth P. Zauber, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel).

Mr. Isadore Glauberman, Special Counsel, argued the cause for respondents ( Mr. William F. Kelly, Jr., Hudson County Counsel, attorney; Mr. Sheldon A. Weiss, on the brief).


We affirm essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Rosen in 97 N.J. Super. 458 ( Law Div. 1967), deeming ourselves bound by what was said in Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 , at page 558 et seq., and particularly page 560 (1954), as to the interpretation to be given N.J.S. 2 A:152-6 to 11, inclusive. In this connection we observe that § 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.A., § 6321) provides that the Government's jeopardy assessment "shall be a lien * * * upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person." (Italics ours) Under Spagnuolo title to the monies in question was no longer in Moriarty at the time the jeopardy assessment was made, but was then in the County of Hudson.


Summaries of

State v. Moriarty

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Sep 16, 1968
102 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

State v. Moriarty

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. JOSEPH V. MORIARTY, DEFENDANT. FRANK J…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Sep 16, 1968

Citations

102 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 1968)
246 A.2d 476

Citing Cases

State v. One

What governs in each case is the intent of the lawmakers. We take note that State v. Moriarty, 97 N.J. Super.…

State v. One

Where statutes impose penalties for forfeitures, since they are considered as enacted for the public good and…