Long Dock Co. v. State Bd. of Assessors
| Decision Date | 20 November 1911 |
| Citation | 82 N.J.L. 21,81 A. 568 |
| Parties | LONG DOCK CO. v. STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS. MORRIS & E. R, CO. v. SAME. CENTRAL R. R. OF NEW JERSEY v. SAME. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari, on the relation of the Long Dock Company and others, to the State Board of Assessors to review assessment for taxes. Assessment affirmed.
Argued February term, 1911, before GARRISON, PARKER, and VOORHEES, JJ.
Collins & Corbin, for Long Dock Co. W. D. Edwards, for Morris & E. R. Co.
George Holmes, for Central R. R. of New Jersey. R. V. Lindabury and James J. Murphy, for Jersey City.
Warren Dixon, George L. Record, and Horace L. Allen, for City of Hoboken. Edmund Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The assessments for taxes brought up by these writs must be affirmed. No legal principle is involved. The value of property is the sole matter of dispute.
By a previous decision of this court that has been affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals (80 Atl. 1135), the principle was laid down that in the assessment of second-class railroad property the additional value imparted to such property by its use under a railroad franchise should not be included. Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 78 N. J. Law, 44, 73 Atl. 53.
This principle the state board has observed in making the present assessment. The opinion in the case cited also held that the market value of terminal property due to its availability for railroad purposes generally was a legitimate basis for its assessment for taxation. This value the state board has assessed in the present case. The fact that the present assessment does not greatly vary from the previous one does not involve the violation of any principle of law, or show that the legal principles laid down for the guidance of the board have been disregarded. All that it shows is that in the judgment of the board the value of these terminal lands for railroad purposes generally was substantially identical with their value under a special franchise for railroad use. That is a question of fact, and we cannot say that it is not so.
The valuation on which the present assessments were made is supported by the return of the state board to which the Legislature has given express authority "to use their personal knowledge and judgment as to the value of property." It is also supported by some of the testimony taken under these writs while opposed by other testimony so taken. We are unable to say that the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitney v. Kelly
...taxation. Long Dock v. State Board of Assessors, 78 N.J.L. 44, 73 A. 53, affirmed 79 N.J.L. 604, 80 A. 1135; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 83 N.J.L. 21, 81 A. 568, affirmed Long Dock Co. v. Strong, 84 N.J.L. 762, 88 A. 1103; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N.J.L. ......
-
State v. State Bd. Of Tax Appeals Jersey City
...Company v. State Board of Assessors, 78 N.J.L. 44, 53, 73 A. 53, 57, affirmed, 79 N.J.L. 604, 80 A. 1135; see, Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 82 N.J.L. 21, 81 A. 568, affirmed, Long Dock Co. v. Strong, 84 N.J.L. 762, 88 A. 1103; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N.J.......
-
N.Y. Bay R. Co. v. Kelly
...appeal. Long Dock v. State Board of Assessors, 78 N.J.L. 44, 73 A. 53, affirmed 79 N.J.L. 604, 80 A. 1135; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 82 N.J.L. 21, 81 A. 568, affirmed Long Dock Co. v. Strong, 84 N.J.L. 762, 88 A. 1103; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N.J.L. 10......
-
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. City of Hoboken
...is the subject of appeal or certiorari. Central R.R. Co. v. State Board, 4. N.J.L. 1, 7 A. 306 (Sup.Ct.1886); Long Dock Co. v. State Board, 82 N.J.L. 21, 81 A. 568 (Sup.Ct.1911) affirmed Long Dock Co. v. Strong, 84 N.J.L. 762, 88 A. 1103 (E. & A.1913). Although it has frequently been said t......