Case ID: ny-st-rep_68/html/0747-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Herrick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. Edison Electric Light Company, App’lt, v. Frank Campbell, as Comptroller, etc., Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed July 6, 1895.)
    
    1. Taxes — Corporations—Manufacturing.
    In a proceeding to review by certiora/ri the assessments of taxes upon cor' porations, the return of the comptroller must be taken as conclusive as to the facts.
    
      2. Same.
    A corporation, whose principal business is the owning and leasing of various kinds of patents for lighting, heating or furnishing motive power by electricity, which patents are used by other companies and corporations, in which it is a large stockholder, is not a manufacturing corporation, within the meaning of the statute relating to taxation.
    8. Same.
    Bonds of corporations existing in any state, owned by a non-manufacturing corporation, are taxable as part of its property.
    4. Same.
    Where the corporation is taxable to some amount, the determination of "the comptroller upon the question of valuation, unless clearly shown to be erroneous, is conclusive.
    
      Certiorari to review the decision, of the comptroller in assessing relator’s property for taxation.
    
      Eaton & Lewis (Eugene H. Lewis and C. R. Waterbary, of counsel), for relator; T. E. Hancock, Atty. Gen. (6. D. B. Hasbrouck, Dep. Atty. Gren., of counsel) for resp’t.
   Herrick, J.

— This is, a proceeding to review by certiorari the assessement of certain taxes made by the comptroller of the state of Hew York upon the capital stock of relator, for the years 1886, 1887, and 1888. This proceeding is similar to the one we have just considered. 69 St. Rep. 746. The allegations of the petitioner as to the character of the business carried on by it during the years in question are substantially the same as those of the case we have just considered, but the return by the comptroller thereto is very different. That portion of it relating to the business of the relator is as follows :

“That it appeared from the information and evidence in the possession of the comptroller that neither the relator nor either of said constituent companies was during either of said years engaged in the manufacture of■ appurtenances for or used in producing light, heat, and power by electricity. That during each of said years the principal business of the relator was the owning and leasing of various kinds of patents employed in lighting, heating, or furnishing motive power by electricity; and its principal income and revenue during each of said years resulted from the sale of royalties or the sale of patents ownecl by it, which patents are used by other companies and corporations, and in which companies and corporations the relator is a large stockholder, as well as" owner of bonds of such companies or corporations ; and the relator was running no wires and furnishing no light during said term.”

And, again, as follows:

“And, upon information and belief, denies that the relator herein was engaged in carrying on any manufacturing whatever or any business other than as stated hereinbefore during the years in question.”

The return of the comptroller must be taken as conclusive as to the facts. People v. Board of Fire Com'rs, 73 N. Y. 437 ; People ex rel. Roeblings Sons Co. v. Wemple, 138 id. 582, 586 ; 53 St. Rep. 297 ; People ex rel. Press Co. v. Martin, 142 N. Y. 228, 235 ; 58 St. Rep. 761. The business of the relator, as described in the return of the comptroller, is not a “manufacturing business,” within the meaning of the statute. “The process of manufacturing is supposed to produce some new article by the application of skill and labor to the raw materials.” People ex rel. W. N. Tea Co. v. Roberts, 145 N. Y. 375, 377; 64 St. Rep. 827. The relator’s business clearly does not come without this definition. The relator, then, was taxable.

It appears that, from the sale of patents to other companies and corporations, it received stocks and bonds in return. The bonds so received from corporations existing in this or other states are taxable as part of its property. People ex rel. Edison E. L. Co. v. Campbell, 138 N. Y. 543 ; 53 St. Rep. 184. How much of its property it has invested in stocks and how much in bonds, does not appear; neither does it clearly appear that the comptroller took into consideration such stocks in fixing the amount of the relator’s taxes. The relator being taxable to some amount, the determination of the comptroller upon the question of valuation, unless clearly shown to be erroneous, is conclusive. People ex rel. Western E. Co. v. Campbell, 145 N. Y. 587; 65 St. Rep. 726.

The determination of the comptroller is affirmed, the certiorari quashed, with $50 costs and disbursements.

Mayham, P. J., not acting ; Putnam, J., concurs.