
    THE TAX INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RELATOR, v. JOHN C. DILTS, COLLECTOR OF TAXES OF THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD, AND FRANK DECKER, RESPONDENTS.
    Argued March 4, 1944
    Decided April 17, 1944.
    Before Justice Case, sitting as a single justice pursuant to the statute.
    
      For the relator, Saul A. Wittes.
    
    For the respondent John C. Dilts, collector of taxes, Salvador Diana.
    
   Case, J.

The pertinent statutory provisions are in R. S. 54:5-54, et seq. The holder of a tax sale certificate has a lien entitling him to redeem from the holder of a subsequently issued tax sale . certificate until the right of redemption is properly extinguished. Van Roden v. Manso, 115 N. J. Eq. 69; Absecon Land Co. v. Keernes, 101 Id. 227. By section 54 ft person having a right to redeem may exercise that right by paying to the collector “the amount required for redemption as hereinafter set forth.” The amounts required for redemption are set forth in sections 58, 59 and 60; section 59 if the certificate is held by the municipality and section 60 if the certificate is held by one other than the municipality. By section 55 the collector is directed, on receiving payment from a person having the right to redeem, to execute and deliver to that person a certificate of redemption, subject, however, to section 56 which provides that when the redemption is made by a person not primarily liable to pay the municipal lien but having a lien or interest in or on the land, he shall, if he so elects, succeed to the municipal lien so paid by him. In the latter event the purchaser at the tax sale is obliged to assign the certificate of sale to the person redeeming, or, if that person makes the redemption within ten days of the date of sale, and so elects, the collector is ordered to issue the certificate direct to him. Relator comes within the application of the fifty-sixth section. He is a person not primarily liable to pay the municipal lien; nevertheless he had a lien and on redeeming within ten days of the date of sale elected that the collector should issue the certificate to him at the rate bid. The fifty-eighth section provides that the amount required to redeem within ten days of the date of the sale shall be the sum paid at the sale with interest from the date of sale at the rate of redemption at which the property was sold. It was in that amount that relator made the tender. The dispute seems to lie on the question of whether relator may perfect the record in a manner to bind the person primarily liable if the latter shall choose to redeem in accordance with the statute. The sixtieth section provides:

“If the certificate of sale is not held by the municipality, tlie amount required for redemption shall include all sums for subsequent municipal liens, and interest and costs thereon, actually paid by the holder of the tax title or his predecessor therein, together with interest on the amount so paid at the rate chargeable by the municipaliiy, provided the holder of such title shall have made and filed with the collecting officer an affidavit showing the amount of such payment, which affidavit may be taken before such officer.”

The nub of the dispute is that the annual interest rate charged by the municipality is seven per centum which, if it applies, will bring to the holder of the tax title that rather munificent rate of return on his disbursement. But the statute clearly states what the rights of the tax title holder are and conditions them upon the filing of an affidavit. It is that affidavit that relator attempted to file and that the collector refused to accept. It is necessary for the protection of the relator’s rights that the affidavit be filed and I find no justification in the statute for the refusal.

It is said that when Decker purchased at the tax'sale the lien of the tax upon the property became a mere individual lien, that it ceased to be a municipal lien and that consequently the provisions of the sixtieth section do not apply. The statute does not, in my opinion, give support to that argument. The contention is not reconcilable with the wording of the fifty-sixth section which is that a person occupying the status of relator, if he so elects, “shall succeed to the municipal lien paid by him.” Whether or not the procedure is such as to enrich unfairly the holder of the tax title at the expense of the person primarily liable is not the concern of the collector. The problem is one of statutory construction. The statute supports the relator’s procedure. It does not, in my opinion, give the semblance of support to the collector’s position.

Aside from the equivalent of an admission that the factual allegations in the writ are true, the return consists of unsubstantial variations in factual statement and of a fallacious presentation of the law. It is, as charged, frivolous. Respondent’s brief contains this statement: “It is conceded that if this Relator, under the facts as herein admitted, comes within the purview of Section 60, that then it is entitled to the demand requested by these proceedings.” I find that the relator does come within the purview of section 60. There is consequently no point in continuing the suit.

The return will be quashed and a peremptory writ will issue; without costs.  