Royal Mfg. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of Taxes of N.J.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1908
• Citation: 76 N.J.L. 402,70 A. 978
• Parties: ROYAL MFG. CO. v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES OF NEW JERSEY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

70 A. 978

76 N.J.L. 402

ROYAL MFG. CO.

v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES OF NEW JERSEY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 30, 1908.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the Royal Manufacturing Company against the board of equalization of taxes of New Jersey and others to review an assessment. Judgment affirmed.

Argued February term, 1908, before REED, PARKER, and VOORIIEES, JJ.

Tennant & Haight, for prosecutor.

Francis V. Dobbins, for defendants.

PARKER, J. The proceedings in this case are for the purpose of obtaining a review by this court of an alleged excessive valuation for taxes in the year 1900 of a manufacturing property belonging to the prosecutor in the city of Rahway. After the original valuation by the local assessor the property was revalued by the county board of taxation, and from the new valuation by that board an appeal was taken to the state board of equalization of taxes, which affirmed the valuation. The prosecutors then sued out a writ of certiorari, addressed to the mayor and common council of the city of Rahway; but, as it appeared in the record submitted to this court at that time that there had been a determination by the state board of equalization of taxes on the very question, and the proceedings and finding of that board were not brought up by the writ, the whole matter was sent back for the purpose of adding those proceedings and that finding to the record. Royal Manufacturing Company v. Rahway (N. J. Sup.) 67 Atl. 940. A second writ of certiorari was thereupon sued out, and the state board was directed by rule of court to certify with the return the facts found by that board on the appeal taken, and the grounds for its determination. Accordingly the board returned the record of the appeal, and certified that it had found as a fact that the valuation complained of "was not in its judgment in excess of what the property would have sold for at a fair and bona fide sale by private contract on May 20. 1900" (the date for assessing), and accordingly had dismissed the appeal and had affirmed the assessment, but that no record of the evidence was kept. Upon this return this court consolidated the two writs and gave the parties leave to take depositions to show what facts were proved before the state board, as a preliminary to examining the evidence taken under the first of the two writs. A number of depositions were taken under this rule to show what witnesses had testified before the state board and what their testimony had been. Objection was made to this manner of proof; but, as all the facts claimed to have been presented to the state board are before us in other aspects, the point is not important.

There was, of course, no hearing before the local assessor, and there was no hearing before the county board. The original assessment made by the city officials was $3,000 for the land and $12,000 for the buildings, including a house. The county board, in the performance of the duty laid upon it by law of revising valuations throughout the county, employed a professional builder to examine this and other factory plants, and on his report raised the valuation of the buildings to $46,800, leaving the valuation of the land unchanged; and it was from this valuation that the appeal was taken to the state board, which, after hearing the testimony above referred to, gave judgment as already stated. The prosecutor now makes two claims: First, that the assessment is in excess of assessments levied against other properties in Rahway, the true values of which, respectively, are greater than the true value of the property of the prosecutor; secondly, because the assessment in question is in excess of the true value of the property.

A number of reasons are advanced, but they all are fairly comprised within these two, excepting one point with regard to the alleged rejection of evidence by the state board, which will now be disposed of with the first reason. So far as this claim is concerned, viz., that there are other properties in Rahway worth more than this one and valued at less, this would be a good ground for pressing for an increase of valuation for the other properties, but not for reducing the valuation of the...