Lehigh Valley R. Co. of N.J. v. State Bd. of Tx. and Appeals
| Decision Date | 16 August 1934 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 257-260.,s. 257-260. |
| Parties | LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND APPEALS et al., and three other cases. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Consolidated cases by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company of New Jersey, by the National Storage Company, by the Lehigh Valley Harbor Terminal Railroad Company, and by the United Real Estate Company against the State Board of Taxes and Appeals and others. On rule to show cause why writs of certiorari should not issue.
Rule discharged.
Argued May term, 1934, before TRENCHARD, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.
Lum, Tamblyn & Fairlie, of Newark (Ralph E. Lum, of Newark, of counsel), for petitioners.
James A. Hamill, of Jersey City (Charles Hershenstein, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondents.
These cases, consolidated as one, are before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be allowed commanding the respondents to certify and send to this court the judgments and proceedings touching and concerning the valuations for the assessments of taxes for the year 1932, of certain properties of each petitioner located in the city of Jersey City.
Petitioners contend that they are entitled to a writ for the following reasons: (1) "Analysis of the testimony as to value reveals that the valuation as determined by the State Board of Tax Appeals are in excess of true values." (2) "The State Board of Tax Appeals committed an error in law in refusing to hear the testimony of petitioners touching discrimination."
Although petitioners make certain obvious observations concerning the effect of the depression on land values, nevertheless, they say:
The special character of the property affected affords little opportunity to determine values on the basis of sales of comparable property before, and much less since the general real estate depression. United New Jersey R. & Canal Co. v. State Board, etc., 103 N. J. Law, 33, 134 A. 669.
It will serve no useful purpose to restate or summarize the testimony disclosed by the record and that stipulated as having been taken on September 27, 1932, and October 4, 1932, on hearings before the board on first and second class property for the year 1931. Suffice it to say that, as is usual in such cases, there is a sharp divergence on the proof as to values. But there is, without question, sufficient proof to justify the determinations reached by the state board, upon which determination the judgments in question were based.
The unanimous conclusions of the state board resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillsborough Tp Somerset County v. Cromwell
...and Appeals in the Thayer-Martin case wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court of New Jersey a year later in Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State Board, 174 A. 359, 12 N.J.Misc. 673. The taxpayer contended that the state board of tax appeals erred in refusing to admit evidence of discrimination. Th......
-
Pitney v. Kelly
...Co. and other Companies v. State Board of Taxes & Assessments, 103 N.J.L. 33, 134 A. 669; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. New Jersey State Board of Taxes and Appeals, 174 A. 359, 12 N.J.Misc. 673. The proof put into this case by the railroad company which purports to show a low value for the ......
-
Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...at 'true value' (Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board, 104 N.J.L. 48, 139 A. 410 (Sup.Ct.1927); Lehigh Valley Ry. Co. v. State Board, 174 A. 359, 360, 12 N.J.Misc. 673 (Sup.Ct.1934)), reemphasizing in the latter case the 'established law of this state that the fact that other property in a t......
-
N.Y. Bay R. Co. v. Kelly
...Railroad & Canal Co. and other Companies v. State Board of Taxes & Assessments, 103 N.J.L. 33, 134 A. 669; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. State Board, 174 A. 359, 12 N.J. Misc. 673. In Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N.J.L. 108, 97 A. 900, affirmed 90 N.J.L. 701, 101 A. 367, a ......