Case ID: njl_84/html/0413-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW JERSEY JUNCTION RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. CHARLES E. HENDRICKSON ET AL., STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET AL., APPELLEES.
    Submitted December 9, 1912
    Decided March 3, 1913.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    Swayze, J. The bonded debt of the railroad is $1,700,000 and the bonds sell above par. The capital stock is $100,000. The total value is, therefore, $1,800,000. The main stem is valued at $1,193,000. Other real estate, $203,137, making a total of $1,396,157. The difference is $403,843. The franchise is only assessed at $246,000. In view of the fact that the railroad is leased to the New York Central and Hudson River .Railroad Company for one hundred years at a minimum rental equal to four per cent, on its bonded debt, we cannot say that the valuation is excessive. The fact that the valuation per mile exceeds that of the Lehigh Valley and the Central of New Jersey is not significant. The whole of the New Jersey Junction railroad lies in one of the most densely populated localities in the United States; it is less than five miles long and conneds two important railroad systems. Its value per mile is necessarily great. rPo make a fair comparison a similar five miles should be taken instead of comparing the value with the average value per mile of other railroads of considerable length, most of which is in rural parts of the state. The small earnings of the New Jersey Junction railroad do not change our view. They are the earnings from operation by another railroad which doubtless uses the New Jersey Junction for its own advantage; the real earnings of the New Jersey Junction are $68,000 net, clear of all taxes and expenses, that being the rental paid for its use.
    The assessment-is affirmed, with costs.
    For the appellant, Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey.
    
    
      For the appellees, Edmund Wilson, attorney-general, and John R. Hardin.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the' reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Teenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisoh, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, Treacy, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.