Hackensack Water Co. v. North Bergen Tp. North Bergen Tp.

• Decision Date: 16 September 1943
• Docket Number: Nos. 25, 26.,s. 25, 26.
• Citation: 130 N.J.L. 483,33 A.2d 821
• Parties: HACKENSACK WATER CO. v. NORTH BERGEN TP. NORTH BERGEN TP. v. HACKENSACK WATER CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 N.J.L. 483

33 A.2d 821

HACKENSACK WATER CO.

v.NORTH BERGEN TP.

NORTH BERGEN TP.

v.HACKENSACK WATER CO.

Nos. 25, 26.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 16, 1943.

Appeals from Supreme Court.

Certiorari proceeding by Hackensack Water Company against State Board of Tax Appeals and another and by Township of North Bergen in the County of Hudson, against State Board of Tax Appeals and another to review a judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals fixing the amount of the Hackensack Water Company's assessment on personal property within the Township of North Bergen for the year 1940 at $1,300,000. From a judgment, 129 N.J.L. 535, 30 A.2d 400, affirming the assessment to the extent of $940,000 and reversing the judgment as to the excess over that amount, the Township of North Bergen appeals.

Affirmed.

In valuing for purposes of taxation as personal property, the water pipes of a water company situated in the public highway, the possible future cost of excavating the street pavement over the present pipes and relaying it over new pipes, which may be required at some indefinite future time, forms no part of the present valuation.

Nicholas S. Schloeder, of Union City, for appellant township.

Milton, McNulty & Augelli, of Jersey City (Joseph Keane, of Jersey City of counsel), for respondent company.

PARKER, Justice.

The dispute is over the valuation for taxation, as of October 1, 1939, of the personal property of the Hackensack Water Company situate within the limits of the township of North Bergen. The questions considered by the State Board, and by the Supreme Court on certiorari, were mainly factual, and counsel for the township properly concedes that the finding of the Supreme Court on the facts is impregnable here if there is any legal evidence to support it. As appears in the Supreme Court opinion, ubi supra, from 1932 to 1937 inclusive, the total was carried at $1,050,000. In 1938 and 1939 the valuation was raised by the township authorities of $1,500,000 but the State Board reduced these to the previous figure. Neverthelss, for 1940 the valuation was again raised to a million and a half. The Water Company appealed to the State Board, which reduced the valuation to $1,300,000. Neither party was satisfied with this, and there were cross writs of certiorari awarded by the Supreme Court, and argued together. That court adjudged a valuation of $940,000, and the municipality is here as appellant, and properly claims that all the reasons for reversal in the Supreme Court are arguable here. However, the argument here is based not on specific reasons assigned in the Supreme Court, but on five propositions, three of which allege that there was no evidence to support certain findings of the Supreme Court, a fourth claiming error in failing to include certain property in the assessment, and a fifth, error in refusing to pass on the question whether a certain estimated future expenses was properly included as part of the valuation.

It should be borne in mind that the valuation for taxation under review was exclusively a valuation of ‘personal property’ and not of realty. Taking up the fourth proposition, the complaint is that the pumping station of the company's local plant should have been included in the...