People ex rel. Edison Electrio Illuminating Co. v. Barker
| Decision Date | 03 October 1893 |
| Citation | 139 N.Y. 55,34 N.E. 722 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. EDISON ELECTRIO ILLUMINATING CO. v. BARKER et al., Commissioners of Taxes. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.
Certiorari on relation of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York to Edward P. Barker, Thomas S. Feitner, and Edward L. Parris, commissioners of taxes for the city and county of New York, to review an assessment. From an order of the general term (22 N. Y. Supp. 1043) atitrming the special term's judgment dismissing the writ, relator appeals. Reversed.
Miller & Wells. (Charles E. Miller, of counsel,) for appellant.
Georgs S. Coleman, for respondents.
The relator is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, and doing business in the city of New York. The defendants are the commissioners of taxes in that city, and as such they assessed the relator on the value of its personal property for the year 1892 at the sum of $4,500,000. This was the amount of its capital actually paid in and secured to be paid in. No deduction was made of the assessed value of any real estate paid for by the company, nor of the amount of its stock, if any, belonging to the state, or to any Literary or charitable institution, as provided for by the statute. I think it may be assumed the assessment was thus made because of the failure of the relator to send to the commissioners the written statement provided for in the law, and from which an assessment in conformity with the facts would be more likely to result. After such assessment was made, and while the books were open for examination and correction, the relator, considering itself aggrieved by such assessment, applied to have the same corrected, pursuant to the provisions of section 820 of the New York consolidation act. At the time of such application the relator submitted to the defendants a statement in writing and under oath. This statement is in the record, and shows the following matters:
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦The total gross assets, exclusive¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦of patent rights, value ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦undetermined................... ¦$1,108,865 00¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Capital stock actually paid in or¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦secured to be paid in.......... ¦4,500,000 00 ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Amount of surplus earnings.......¦............ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Rate of dividend for last year, ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦or last annual dividend, 4 per ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦cent. ......................... ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Indebtedness in detail as ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦follows: ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Bills and accounts payable.......¦440,503 00 ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦Bonds............................¦2,250,000 00 ¦
+---------------------------------+-------------¦
¦ ¦$2,690,503 00¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
Then followed a statement of the assessed value of each portion of real estate owned by the company, by ward and ward map numbers, and aggregating $698,500. The statement further showed that the stock bad hardly an established market value, although there had been a few sales during the year, averaging about 75, the par being 100. It was also stated the value of the stock depended greatly upon the value of the patent rights, the validity of which was in litigation, and that an adverse decision would very seriously affect the value of the stock; that $2,250,000 of the capital stock had been issued for patent rights to Mr. Edison, and those patents were owned by the company. In estimating the value of the assets it was stated that, so far as applicable, the valuation of the tax commissioners had been adopted. This statement was sworn to by the treasurer of the corporation. After its presentation to and examination by the tax commissioners, the assessment against the relator was reduced to the sum, for taxable purposes, of $1,000,000. The relator, still feeling aggrieved, sued out a certiorari for the purpose of obtaining a review of the assessment, and claimed that from the facts appearing, and which it is alleged were uncontradicted, it was not liable to be assessed for any amount whatever The writ commanded the defendants to return, among other things, and besides the written statement above alluded to, ‘any other evidence or information, if any, before you or considered by you in arriving at your decision, and, if there were no other evidence or information, that you so state.’ The defendants returned no other evidence or information than the statement mentioned, but the return did not otherwise and in terms negative the existence of some other information considered by them. After reciting the fact that the relator filed the written and sworn statement with them, the defendants in their return stated that ‘thereupon we examined into the complaint so made by the relator, and considered such statement in writing, and, having made due inquiry as to the value of the capital owned by the relator, we fixed the amount of such value subject to assessment for the purpose of taxation at the sum of $1,698,500, which we believed to be just;’ and, after deducting the assessed value of the real estate, a balance of $1,000,000 for taxable purposes was left, which the defendants ‘decided to be the sum for which the said capital stock, to wit, the capitalstock owned by the relator, was lawfully assessable for taxation for the year 1892,’ and the assessment was therefore reduced from the original sum of $4,500,000 to that amount.
The application of the relator which it made to the defendants was under section 820 of the consolidation act, and was in relation to the assessed valuation of its personal estate. The section provides that the applicant shall be examined under to fix the amount of the assessment as they may believe to be just. The record contains no other examination under the oath of the applicant than the sworn statement already described, and it may properly be assumed from the heading, form, and contents of that statement that it was made when the relator made its application, and at the instance of the commissioners, and in answer to their questions printed on blanks for that purpose. The section of the statute requires the commissioners to declare their decision within a certain time. This decision, it need scarcely be said, is not to be capricious, arbitrary, or fanciful. It must be based upon some evidence or facts, and should be the result of the exercise of judgment and discrimination. This would naturally be so, and the statute in the succeeding section (821) provides for a certiorari to review or correct on the merits any decision or action of the commissioners in such matter. This does not mean that the court is to place itself in the position of an assessor, and review the decisions of those officers upon questions of value or appraisement where the officers proceeded upon information or evidence tending to support their decision. The court generally will not look into questions of fact as to the amount or value of the personal estate of a corporation or individual. These are questions for the judgment of the assessors, and their decisions will ordinarily be sustained. This doctrine has been advanced and decided in several cases, among the latest of which is People v. Hicks, 105 N. Y. 198, 11 N. E. Rep. 653. In the case of a corporation liable to be taxed upon its capital and surplus, as the relator is, the inquiry is as to the actual value of such capital and surplus. People v. Coleman, 126 N. Y. 433, 27 N. E. Rep. 818. When the evidence upon the subject is entirely uncontradicted, and is full and complete, so that all the necessary facts are established beyond any fair dispute, and if there can be but one inference resulting therefrom, and there is no reason appearing for doubting the truth of such evidence, a refusal on the part of the assessors to decide in accordance with it would be merely capricious and arbitrary, amounting to a legal error, and it should not be sustained.
The statement verified by the treasurer of the relator is unfavorably criticised on the ground of its generality. It is said to be a wholesale assertion, no details being given, and from which it is impossible for any one to determine the exact situation of the property of the relator, or its real value, and hence the relator has failed to show any error in the decision of the commissioners. Under the statute the relator made application to correct the assessment actually made in regard to its personal estate. It therefore became the duty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Nat. Bank of Salt Lake City v. Naylor
... ... Parrish ... (C. C.) 24 F. 197; People v. Coleman , 126 ... N.Y. 433, 27 N.E. 818. 12 ... R. A. 762; People v ... [54 Utah 59] Barker , 139 N.Y. 55, 34 N.E. 722; ... Atchison, T. & ... ...
-
People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Barker
...assets, in the absence of evidence tending to show the nature and value of the property supposed to be omitted. People v. Barker, 139 N. Y. 55, 34 N. E. 722;Id., 141 N. Y. 251, 36 N. E. 196. The real estate of a railroad must be valued, for the purpose of taxation, at not to exceed what it ......
-
People ex rel. Cornell Steamboat Co. v. Dederick
...565, 20 N. E. 389,2 L. R. A. 772;People ex rel. Union Trust Co. v. Same, 126 N. Y. 433, 27 N. E. 818;People ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Barker, 139 N. Y. 55, 34 N. E. 722;People ex rel. Second Ave. R. Co. v. Same, 141 N. Y. 196, 36 N. E. 184;People ex rel. Equitable Gaslight......
-
People ex rel. Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Barker
...and which they disbelieve, where good reasons exist for such disbelief. People v. Coleman, supra; People ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. v. Barker, 139 N. Y. 55-67, 34 N. E. 722;People ex rel. General Electric Co. v. Barker, 141 N. Y. 251, 36 N. E. 196;People v. Commissioners of Ta......