Long Dock Co. v. Hendrickson State Bd. of Assessors

• Decision Date: 25 February 1914
• Citation: 85 N.J.L. 536,89 A. 1031
• Parties: LONG DOCK CO. v. HENDRICKSON et al. State Board of Assessors.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

89 A. 1031

85 N.J.L. 536

LONG DOCK CO.

v. HENDRICKSON et al. State Board of Assessors.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 25, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the Long Dock Company against Charles E. Hendrickson, Jr., and others, State Board of Assessors, removing assessments, etc., on second-class railroad property for 1911. Assessment affirmed.

Argued November term, 1913, before GARRISON, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

Gilbert Collins, George S. Hobart, and Robert J. Bain, all of Jersey City, for prosecutor. Edmund Wilson, Atty. Gen., and John R. Hardin and John Franklin Fort, both of Newark, for defendants.

MINTURN, J. The assessments upon 23 parcels of land in the taxing district of Jersey City are the subject of consideration upon this writ. Of these parcels, 22 are located outside of the main stem of the Erie Railroad, and the remaining parcel comprises the terminal station of the Erie Railroad, comprehending in that designation the ferry buildings, racks, floats, waiting rooms, train sheds, and platforms.

The lands involved begin at the exterior line for piers on the Hudson river, and extend substantially backward to the west on either side of the Erie Railroad main stem to Provost street; and on the north are bounded by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad property, and on the south by that of the Pennsylvania Railroad east of Bergen hill. And on either side of the main stem are located other parcels of land, used as an adjunct to the railroad, and west of the Bergen hill from the point of the railroad's exit from its tunnel or cut other parcels extend westwardly over the meadows to what is known as Penhorn creek on the Secaucus meadows. The latter tracts are reclaimed from the meadows by filling in, and are mainly utilized for the storage of railroad rolling stock. The only physical interruption in the water front terminal tract is the existence of a city street, called Pavonia avenue, which, running longitudinally from west to east, supplies the only available outlet in Jersey City to the Erie or Pavonia ferry.

The assessments upon the same parcels of land have been the subject of litigation in this court and the Court of Errors and Appeals during the years 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, and the results of that litigation are embodied in Long Dock Co. v. State Board, 78 N. J. Law, 44, 73 Atl. 53; Id., 82 N. J. Law, 21, 81 Atl. 568; Long Dock Co. v. Strong, 88 Atl. 1103.

The prosecutor reduces its objections to the assessment sub judice to two general grounds: First, that it was made upon erroneous principles; and, secondly, that the assessments and taxes levied on the lands referred to are excessive. We think, under substantially similar conditions, and upon objections not radically different from these offered here, this court, in the cases referred to, has practically solved these contentions in favor of the validity of the assessment. Those cases are authority for the proposition that this court will not, in settling the question of fair value, oppose its judgment to that of an administrative board, intrusted by law with the duty of fixing the fair value or market value of land for the purposes of assessing the same for taxes, where there is testimony before the board, the weight and value of which it is required to determine, to which the members of the board may add their individual personal knowledge and judgment. Long Dock Co. v. State Board, 82 N. J. Law, 21, 81 Atl. 568.

The prosecutor attempts to differentiate the case sub judice from the previous determinations by the insistence that the modus operandi of the board in using and applying their personal knowledge was not under review in those cases, and that it is attempted to be shown here. We know of no provisions of the statute which requires the members of the state board, sitting as an appellate board, to submit to an examination for the purpose of discovering their personal views and judgment in the controversy. It was within the power of the prosecutor to compel the board by writ of certiorari to disclose the principles upon which they made their assessment, and the manner in which those principles were applied, but the prosecutor has not deemed it necessary to adopt that procedure. We are remitted therefore in the determination of the case to the inquiry whether, in view of the testimony adduced, the assessment complained of is illegal, as made in excess of true or market value.

The prosecutor has devoted a portion of its brief to an attempt to show that, in assessing the lands, the board, having ascertained the money or market value of the lands from the testimony of experts, applied to it an unknown...