Case ID: ny-st-rep_21/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniels, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. The Central Park, North and East River Railroad Co., App’lts, v. The Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respt’s.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department
    
    
      Filed January 28, 1889.)
    
    Taxes and assessments—Cobpobation—Valuation of stock.
    When the report of the treasurer of a corporation shows that a dividend of eight per cent was paid during the last year, on the stock, and the report for the preceding year shows that the same dividend was paid, and that the stock was worth 130 per cent. Sold, that it was reasonable to assume that the value of the stock was the same, and that the commissioners were Justified in assessing it at its par value.
    Appeal from an order confirming an assessment and dismissing a writ of certiorari.
    
    
      Delos McCurdy and B.W.Franklin, for app’lts; George <S. Coleman, for respt’s.
   Daniels, J.

The writ of certiorari was issued in this case to review the assessment made by the commissioners of taxes and assessments upon the capital stock of the relator in the year 1884. The valuation adopted by the commissioners was the par value of the stock of the company, amounting to the sum of $1,800,000. They deducted from "this amount the assessed value of the real estate and tracks of the company, and the shares of stock owned by it in other corporations taxed upon their capital, leaving a balance of $1,354,779. These deductions, for the reasons stated in considering the assessment on the capital for the year 1883 (ante, 350), are all that the company was entitled to claim. And the only point remaining to be considered is whether the commissioners were right in assuming the par value of the stock as the valuation upon which the assessment should proceed.

For this purpose they had before them the admission in the report of the treasurer of the company that a dividend of eight per cent had been paid during the last preceding year upon the stock. They also had in the report of 1883, which they were at liberty to consult for this purpose, the further statement that the stock was worth 130 per cent; and the general evidence given before the referee did not detract from, or overcome, the effect of these statements. In the report made in 1884 the statement of the Yalue of the stock was omitted. But as the dividend remained still, the same as it was previously stated to be in the report of 1883, it was only reasonable to assume that the actual value of the stock was the same, and that was 130 per cent. That justified the commissioners in assessing it at its par value, which was thirty per cent less than from this evidence appeared to be its actual value. They also had the reports made and published in a journal called. The Stockholder devoted to this subject, giving what were stated to be larger offers than this for the purchase of shares of stock in the company. And this evidence from these different sources was not overcome in its effect by the facts related in the course of the examination of the-president of the company, more particularly that the value of the stock was inflated or advanced by speculative parties at times desiring to obtain its control. The bonded as well as the floating indebtedness of the company, which remained very nearly the same as in the preceding year, was without doubt fully considered by the commissioners, in their estimate of the assessable value of the stock. And upon no ground appearing, and not controverted by the return of the commissioners, would the court be justified in interfering with this assessment ? It should accordingly be affirmed, together with the usual costs and disbursements.

Bartlett, J., concurs.