United N.J. R. & Canal Co. v. State Bd. of Taxes Andassessment

• Decision Date: 19 May 1924
• Docket Number: No. 61.,61.
• Citation: 125 A. 335
• Parties: UNITED NEW JERSEY R. & CANAL CO. et al. v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES ANDASSESSMENT et al. (two cases). (Nos. 63, 65.) DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

125 A. 335

UNITED NEW JERSEY R. & CANAL CO. et al.

v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES ANDASSESSMENT et al. (two cases). (Nos. 63, 65.)

DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

v. SAME.

No. 61.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 19, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by the United New Jersey Railroad & Canal Company and others against the State Board of Taxes and Assessment and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs (125 Atl. 921) defendants appeal. Reversed.

Edward P. Stout, of Jersey City, for appellants.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence and Collins & Corbin, all of Jersey City, and O. M. M. Stallman, of Newark, for respondents.

BLACK, J. The appeal in these cases is from judgments entered in the Supreme Court. That court reduced the assessments for taxatioe for the year 1922 on 14 pieces of property of the prosecutors. The properties are located in Jersey City and Hoboken facing the Hudson river. They are the terminal lands of the prosecutors. In general terms, they are bounded on the east by the Hudson river, on the west by Greene, Provost, and Henderson streets. Henderson street runs from Jersey City to Hoboken. On the south by Exchange place, Montgomery street, and Second street in Jersey City. On the north by Ferry street in Hoboken. The portal of the vehicular subway now building is within the above bounds, at Provost, Twelfth, and Henderson streets.

The properties assessed may be shortly described or identified thus:

The properties of the United New Jersey Railroad & Canal Company, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company lessee, are: (1) Area 12.731 acres, assessed at $20,000 per acre, total $254,620, reduced to $203,696. If this plot is in case No. 62 New York Bay Railroad Company, it is affirmed. There is some confusion in the record as to its location.

(2) Area 30.564 acres, assessed at $95,000 per acre, total $2,903,580, reduced to $2,682,908.

(3) Area 3,623 acres, assessed at $95,000 per acre, total $344, 185, reduced to $318,020.

(4) Area 98.835 acres, assessed at $88,100 per acre, total $8,707,363, reduced to $7,412,625.

(5) Area 6.682 acres, assessed at $88,100 per acre, total $588,684, reduced to $501,150.

The properties of the Long Dock Company, the Erie Railroad Company lessee are:

(1) Area 16.555 acres, assessed at $87,000 per acre, total $1,440,285 reduced to $1,251,625.

(2) Area 67.830 acres, assessed at $90,000 per acre, total $6,104,700, reduced to $5,087,250.

(3) Area 2.816 acres, assessed at $90,000 per acre, total $253,440, reduced to $211,200.

(4) Area 3.164 acres, assessed at $90,000 per acre, total $284,760, reduced to $237,300.

The properties of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company are:

(1) Area 131.840 acres, assessed at $95,000 per acre, total $12,524,800, reduced to $10,547,200.

(2) Area 40.068 acres, assessed at $96,000 per acre, total $3,846,528, reduced to $3,205,440.

(3) Area 1.525 acres, assessed at $75,000 per acre, total $114,375, reduced to $99,125.

(4) Area 3.240 acres, assessed at $95,000 per acre, total $307,800, reduced to $275,400.

(5) Area 3.728 acres, assessed at $96,000 per acre, total $357,888, reduced to $316,880.

The assessments on the 14 pieces of property for the year 1922 totaled $38,033,008. The assessments made by the Supreme Court totaled $32,339,825, a reduction of $5,693, 187.

The legal principles underlying the assessment of property for taxatipn are no longer debatable questions in this court. They have been examined, reasserted, and applied by this court and the Supreme Court in many cases, involving these identical properties, since the act of 1884 (Laws '1884, p. 142), which created a special board of assessors for valuing this class of property. Cases illustrating these principles applied to this class of property under discussion are: Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 86 N. J. Law, 592, 92 Atl. 439; Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 89 N. J. Law, 108, 97 Atl. 900; Central R. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 49 N. J. Law, 1, 7 Atl. 306; Id., 48 N. J. Law, 146, 4 Atl. 578. Many other cases in our reports will there be found collected and cited.

The only question that is presented to us for decision in the record of these cases is: Is there evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Supreme Court? Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, 90 N. J. Law, 701, 101 Atl. 367; Delaware, Lackawanna, etc., B. Co. v. Newark, 63 N. J. Law, 310, 43 Atl. 691.

We think there is no evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its opinion does not state the evidence from the record, on which its findings are based. It, however, does recite, as a reason why the reductions were made, referring to the Erie group, "We still are unable to agree that such great advances in one year are fairly supported by the evidence," and, "In the Lackawanna group, a somewhat similar disposition will be made." "What we have said about the adjoining Erie tracts" is applicable to the Pennsylvania group. This, however is not a ground for reversing these judgments, if there is evidence to be found in the record to support them, although not recited by that court in its opinion. The record is voluminous, consisting of three large volumes, making a record of 1816 pages.

We proceed, therefore, to analyze the evidence, as shown by the record. Like all cases in which evidence is presented for the purpose of determining or fixing the value of a given piece of real estate, at any given time, when not offered for sale, such evidence is divided generally into two classes: Sales of other lands and testimony of expert witnesses. To use the words of the prosecutors' brief, the sales evidence is thus summarized, according to the schedule of sales and the testimony: Twenty-five per cent. of the Hudson river frontage in Hudson county was sold between the years 1915 and 1921. The sales were lands in Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, and North Bergen. There were 12 sales, and the highest prices ranged from $54,227 to $68,200 per acre. The lands of the prosecutors on the river in Hoboken and Jersey City were assessed by the state board at from $87,000 to $96,000 per acre. It is quite evident, therefore, the Supreme Court could not have based its judgment solely upon a comparison of the prices of the land sold with the hypothetical prices of the market value of the lands under investigation. It may be observed, in passing, that Weehawken is at least a mile, if not further, from the nearest point to the lands now under investigation; North Bergen several times that distance. It is also clear that the lands assessed by reason of their use as railroad lands and large plots do not change hands in the open market, so that their market value can be ascertained by the usual method applicable to city lots. It is also clear that there have been no other lands of like acreage or use in the locality sold in the open market from time to time, to which the market value of these lands can be compared. The criterion established of market value is a hypothetical sale; hence the would-be buyers are hypothetical buyers, not actual and existing purchasers....