We now come to the general statutory revision of 1937. The revisors, accepting the decision of our highest court, which we have cited, left out the words ‘assessed at too low a rate’, so that the revised section authorizes action only when the petition shows ‘that property specified has been omitted in the assessment.’ Since the Revised Statutes were adopted ‘as all the public statute law of the State of New Jersey of a general nature’, P.L.1937, Ch. 188, therefore Section 28 of the 1903 Act has been effectively repealed except to the extent that it has been reenacted in Section 20. See Brower v. Franklin. The repeal or failure to re-enact as part of the Revision so much of Section 28 of the old statute as gave Commissioners of Appeal the power in question, so operated that Section 11 does not confer that power on the county boards.
We find, however, that the jurisdiction to hear the appeals in question was conferred upon the county boards. This allows ‘a taxing district which may feel discriminated against by the assessed valuation of property in the taxing district’ to appeal to the county board. It was doubtless because the revisors considered that this grant of power included in its scope the jurisdiction given by Section 28 of the Laws of 1903 over complaints by a taxation district that assessments were too low, that they omitted a like grant of jurisdiction from Section 20 of the Revision, N.J.S.A. Section 21 is taken from Section 701 of the Tax Act of 1918, the same section that was considered in N.Y. State Realty & Terminal Co. v. Hudson County Board of Taxation, supra. That decision turned upon the question whether Section 701 governed an appeal by the taxing district based on a complaint that property was assessed too low. The Court of Errors and Appeals held that the section did govern, and that it gave jurisdiction to the County Board.
