Erie R. System, In re

• Decision Date: 20 June 1955
• Docket Number: A--154,Nos. A--153,s. A--153
• Citation: 19 N.J. 110,115 A.2d 89
• Parties: In the Matter of the complaints and Appeals of ERIE RAILROAD SYSTEM, City of Hoboken and Township of Weehawken from various assessments Levied by the Director of the Division of Taxation for the years 1950 to 1953, inclusive, on Class 11 Lands owned by Erie Railroad System and located in the City of Hoboken and the Township of Weehawken. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOBOKEN and Township of Weehawken, municipal corporations, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondents- Respondents (four appeals). CITY OF HOBOKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent-Appellant, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondents (three appeals). TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent-Appellant, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondents. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondents-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 110

19 N.J. 110

115 A.2d 89

In the Matter of the complaints and Appeals of ERIE RAILROAD

SYSTEM, City of Hoboken and Township of Weehawken from

various assessments Levied by the Director of the Division

of Taxation for the years 1950 to 1953, inclusive, on Class

11 Lands owned by Erie Railroad System and located in the

City of Hoboken and the Township of Weehawken.

ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOBOKEN and Township of Weehawken, municipal

corporations, and Director, Division of Taxation

and Division of Tax Appeals, Department

of the Treasury,

Respondents-

Respondents

(four appeals).

CITY OF HOBOKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent-Appellant, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals,

Department of the Treasury, Respondents (three appeals).

TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent-Appellant, and Director, Division of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondents.

TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, and Director, Division

of Taxation and Division of Tax Appeals,

Department of the Treasury,

Respondents-Respondents.

Nos. A--153, A--154.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 23, 1955.

Decided June 20, 1955.

Raymond J. Lamb, Jersey City, argued the consolidated causes for Erie R. Co. (Emory, Langan & Lamb, Jersey City, attorneys).

James Rosen, Newark, argued the consolidated causes for City of Hoboken and Township of Weehawken (Milmed & Rosen, Newark, attorneys for Township of Weehawken; Herbert H. Fine, Newark, attorney for City of Hoboken.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BURLING, J.

These consolidated appeals from the Division of Tax Appeals in the Department of the Treasury, State of New Jersey (hereinafter called the Division) involve assessments of lands classified in the category of Class II railroad property. See N.J.S.A. 54:29A--17. The assessments on Class II buildings and other improvements are not involved herein. One of the appeals was taken by the Township of Weehawken (hereinafter called Weehawken) a municipal corporation of New Jersey, from a Division judgment of dismissal of Weehawken's appeal of a 1953 assessment (A--154 September term 1954). The balance of the appeals were taken by the Erie Railroad Company (hereinafter called Erie), a corporation of the State of New York, using properties in New Jersey for railroad purposes, and relate to judgments of the Division which sustained or increased certain 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 assessments of Class II lands of Erie, situate within the territorial limits of the City of Hoboken, New Jersey (hereinafter called Hoboken) and Weehawken. (A--153 September term 1954.)

The several appeals above adverted to, addressed to and consolidated by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, were certified by this court on its own motion prior to hearing there.

There are three principal parcels of Class II railroad land involved in these appeals. All of these parcels may be generally characterized as Hudson River waterfront terminal lands. One was cursorily described in Erie's complaint filed with the Division as second-class Erie Railroad property in the City of Hoboken consisting of 1.862 acres of land 'outside main stem, excess in southeast portion of Terminal Tract triangle extending from Weehawken Township to exterior line for piers.' These lands were assessed by the Director, Division of Taxation (hereinafter called the Director) for each of the tax years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 at $75,410. This parcel will be referred to herein as parcel No. 3. The other two parcels, designated throughout the tax appeal proceedings as parcels Nos. 1 and 2, lie in Weehawken. Weehawken parcel No. 1 was described in Erie's complaint filed with the Division as 69.847 acres of land 'outside main stem, excess from east side of main stem of N.J. Junction R.R. to exterior for piers,' and was assessed by the Director for each of the tax years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 at $2,828,803. Weehawken parcel No. 2, in respect to tax years 1950, 1951 and 1952, was described by Erie in its complaint as 9.642 acres of land 'outside main stem, excess west of main stem of N.J. Junction R.R.,' and was assessed by the Director for each of those tax years at $260,334. Weehawken parcel No. 2 was subjected to reclassification for the 1953 tax year, 2.032 acres being withdrawn from the Class II railroad property classification and assessed by local authorities as general lands. Therefore the Director's assessment for the tax year 1953 as to Weehawken parcel No. 2, namely $205,470, related to 7.610 acres of land 'outside main stem, excess west of main stem of N.J. Junction R.R.'

Erie appealed the assessments on all three parcels, for each of the four tax years, 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. Erie sought reduction of assessments, on Weehawken parcel No. 1, to $2,095,410 for each tax year; on Weehawken Parcel No. 2 to $188,983 for tax years 1950, 1951 and 1952, and (on the reduced acreage hereinbefore mentioned) to $149,900 for tax year 1953; and on parcel No. 3 (Hoboken) to $55,860.

Hoboken appealed the assessments on parcel No. 3 for tax years, 1951, 1952 and 1953 contending that the parcel's true value for each of those tax years was $121,600.

Weehawken appealed the assessments on parcels No. 1 and No. 2 for tax years 1952 and 1953, contending that for tax years 1952 and 1953 the true value of parcel No. 1 was $3,841,585; for tax year 1952 the true value of parcel No. 2 was $289,260; and for tax year 1953, the true value of parcel No. 2 as reduced in size was $239,260.

The Erie, Hoboken and Weehawken appeals hereinbefore adverted to were consolidated for hearing in the Division of Tax Appeals. The taking of testimony commenced October 20, 1953, before Commissioners Hull, DeVoe and Weiner, who constituted the 'railroad panel' of the Division of Tax Appeals, before whom all pending railroad tax appeals had been listed for hearing. The hearings encompassed 20 days, spread over a period of months terminating April 12, 1954. A report for the panel was prepared by Commissioner Hull, dated August 6, 1954. Commissioner Hull's written report contained detailed discussion of the appeals and evidence, expressed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended judgments based thereon. The Division of Tax Appeals, on August 27, 1954, stating 'the members of the Division of Tax Appeals having considered the evidence submitted by the parties,' entered separate judgments in each of these tax appeals. The Division's docket entries demonstrate that Commissioner Hull's report 'was unanimously approved and judgment was ordered entered accordingly.'

The Division, in its judgments, dismissed Erie's appeals for all four tax years (1950--1953, inclusive); dismissed Weehawken's 1953 appeal on adjective grounds; granted Hoboken appeals as to tax years 1951, 1952 and 1953, establishing the assessment for each tax year at $83,790; granted Weehawken's appeal for the tax year 1952, setting the assessments for that year at $3,143,115 as to Weehawken parcel No. 1, and at $289,260 as to Weehawken parcel No. 2. Erie appealed from the Division's judgments dismissing its tax appeals, and from the Division's judgments allowing increases in assessments on Hoboken's and Weehawken's appeals. Weehawken appealed from the Division's judgment dismissing its 1953 appeal. All these appeals were addressed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, and were consolidated for hearing by order of that court made with the consent of all parties to the appeals and filed November 3, 1954. As hereinbefore noted, we certified the consolidated appeals for argument and disposition in this court. The arguments and briefs of Erie, Hoboken and Weehawken have been presented to us in two phases: Erie's appeals, A--153 September term 1954, and Weehawken's appeal, A--154 September term 1954. In the disposition of the consolidated appeals this sequence will be maintained. It is noted in passing that the respondents Director, Division of Taxation, and Division of Tax Appeals have filed a statement signifying their determination to file no briefs in these matters.

Erie's Appeals (A--153).

The questions involved in Erie's appeals include: (a) whether there were procedural defects requiring reversal, in connection with the course of determination pursued by the Division; (b) whether the Division adjectively made adequate findings of facts and determinations; (c) whether the Division erred in relation to matters of evidence, including, Inter alia, resort to 'trends' of increase in property values; (d) whether the Division must affirm an assessment in absence of substantial evidence of error therein; (e) whether the determinations made by the Division are supported by the evidence. In addition, on these appeals, Hoboken and Weehawken question the validity of an order made by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, on December 1, 1954, extending Erie's time for perfection of its course of appeal.

I. Adjective Course of Determination.

The initial questions involved presented by Erie on these appeals broach three adjective issues: whether there should be a reversal of the judgments of the Division for failure of all three members of the railroad panel to sign their report, whether the panel report was invalid because it included recommendations, and whether the approval of the report submitted by Commissioner Hull constituted adoption thereof by the Division.

Erie accepts as valid the mechanics of the Division's assignment of these appeals to, and of hearing by, the railroad panel. The questions involved are devoid of any direct or implied attack thereon, and if there is any deficiency in that respect it must be deemed...