Trs. of Stevens Inst. of Tech. v. State Bd. of Tx. and Assessment

• Decision Date: 18 October 1928
• Docket Number: No. 254.,254.
• Citation: 143 A. 356
• Parties: TRUSTEES OF STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

143 A. 356

TRUSTEES OF STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT et al.

No. 254.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 18, 1928.

Certiorari by the Trustees of Stevens Institute of Technology against the State Board of Taxes and Assessment and others. Rule in accordance with opinion.

Argued October term, 1928, before MINTURN, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.

Horace L. Allen, of Hoboken, for defendants.

BLACK, J. The certiorari in this case was allowed to review the taxes assessed against seven pieces of land, approximately 18.94 acres, owned by the prosecutor, located in the city of Hoboken. The assessment was for the year 1927; aggregating $963,500. The only point involved in the case is one of fact, viz. the true value of the property on the date fixed by the statute for making the valuations viz. October 1, 1926.

The statute (PL. 1918, p. 870, § 512) permits the court, when it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court "that the value of taxable property for which any person is therein assessed, is too great," etc., to "amend such assessment and reduce the same to the proper and just amount." As stated by this court in the case of Millville Gas Light Co. v. City of Millville, 84 N. J. Law, 409, 86 A. 449, the practical proposition is that this court is asked to reweigh and pass upon the effect of evidence taken before a body especially organized for this very purpose, and to set aside its action, as not justified by the weight of evidence.

There is nothing to show that the state board (board of equalization in that case) has not carefully discharged the duties imposed upon it by law, and its findings should not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous. It is settled that the Supreme Court has power to review and determine disputed questions of fact, as well as of law. Gibbs v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, 101 N. J. Law, 371, 129 A. 189. The Supreme Court should weigh the evidence and render such a decision as it thought proper according to the view it entertained of the evidence. Id.

For that purpose we proceed to review the evidence presented in the record. As above stated, the property assessed consists of seven pieces of property described as follows: Plots U, V, and W, block 228, new lot 30; plot 27; 33; 35; 31; 4 and 5; 18.94 acres, assessed at $963,500 for the taxable year 1927.

This, in the table annexed to the record, is calculated to be at the rate of $1.17 per square foot, as against .33 cents per square foot for the year 1926. In an acre of land there are 17 lots 25x100 feet. The number of lots in an acre multiplied by 18, the number of acres conceded to be in the plots, equals 306 lots. This would be at the rate of $3,147.22 per lot, as against an assessment of $825 per lot for the year 1926.

Property to be assessed, whatever may be its character, is to be taken and valued in the actual condition in which the owner holds it. Colwell v. Abbott, 42 N. J. Law, 111, 115.

The prosecutor called as witnesses to prove the value contended for by it, C. Alfred Burrhorn, a real estate agent "for the last 25 years," located at Hoboken, N. J. The value of his testimony was somewhat impaired on cross-examination by a reference to a sale of Keller to Ferguson on April 25, 1928, on the south side of Ninth street, directly west and adjoining plot 5 involved in this case, and the sale made by Besson on March 22, 1922, of property located on the north side of Ninth street across the way from the Ferguson property.

Walter L. Kidde, one of the trustees of the prosecutor, explained why the trustees of...