New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-26
THE APPRALSMENT TOO HIGH.
EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF TIE UNION
FERRY COMPANY'S PROPERTY.
JUDGE DAILY SAYS THAT 100000 MUST COME OFF
THE EXPERTS FIGURES.

JUDGE DAILY SAYS THAT 100000 MUST COME OFF
THE EXPERTS FIGURES.
The Union Ferry Company viii have to cut the
,nnro,soI NJ II. propcrty down about 100000 or
new appi:sa! viii be ordered. The company WAceu
the vnluc OF the property nj S'''42'"V'' Ao WHY"
price II Offered to sell II 10 the city his pH'' was
reached by two appraisers one OF whom was apP'''e'
bv the Controller, and the other by the company
Edmund W McClave. rs a taxpayer, objected to the
appralsemcnt and bccnn a suit in the Court Of Com
mon Pleas TO set II aside. subsequently Mr. NC
cIave retired from the suit which was continued Dy
the city, chief Judge Daily decided the case Sc''er-
day. lie SAYS that the company must cut DOWN INC
price by the amount mentioned. or submit To ne"
app5ai,cmcni. The appraiscmcnt was maze !" oo"'
iormty with n covenant In the lease which the com
pany held from the city. providing that If this com
pnny wa, not IT. successor in leasing the Terry
franchises the property should De sold under an ap
ulois.mcnt such as was made III ths case In dc
cGlng that the price fixed too high. Judge Daily
says. among other things
The public interests at stake very great, ana
the Commissioners Il the sinking rum Me.v '"' inon
invest cation they discovered TINT In the sworn ohcL
report Of Tic Old COMPANY mad IN le je.T IA oo
that II inere wsrc added to This sum tile cost and
caui pmen, II two new fcrTyboats not thch comPeted
bt included IN the appra sem"nt under the lease u
would appear that the total property Of th" fcrrJ com
Amounted 10 onv Al 55a.OOO while the apprai'encn'
made q year aiicrwnrd Wa sJ,-o3.Ooo, :, Niia a
ever may have been the reasons wI'P 'o"uol'l .n'
managers II the old company IL dos appear RON we
evidence that the Pfotrrty wa, "o0" III "'N' u'"0''
In deciding ulon the ju'tncs, and faiincs, OF me
appsai."rc mus be born In mind that the GUY -,
the appraisers Wa 10 n'c"itiu inc pIr>', N'o III "
the property. A. 20 the building, ferry hW''> ram
ctc-thcy wec 10 inire what II wond co' 70 ~
but from the cost of the new structures thus a,c,r
talncd they 10 make deductions for the dclerl3a
ton by axe Of natural wear ana tear o. ~ o'',s
word, for fhc difference between new ana od' ~
to the real cstnt" they vc 70 ascertain the pNIen'
market value, based If possible upon A''ul ' a1
ia examining The work ~ the appraisers We SlaII ma
from the evidence that these rules seem 10 fyc D,,n
disrcgardcd In some III. anceS ana thn, .n v hc,
valIaon II it.mH has accordingly rcsultcl, Dut
by no means as great claimed. Thus IN apprES!ng
the value Of the ferry structure, OF TI.5f:.w. 1ne
apn.aiscrs have given tie cost Of the new structures
nj the present day without deduction for age although
all the experts agrc that an allowance shou'u pc
made on that account; for which. however thcy nave
found an offset, enormously, think, CONCEDED W
the appraisers The offset against dcterorlton by
age which the experts have allowed IS the supposed
Increase OF new structures n"ces,httd by cree uh
them while the ferries wer" in opera ION. 40 no'
SEQ how the experts justified In making m allow
ance and above the price OF new structures I2r
the GNtra cost ncccs-ita'ed By rebuilding the VIII"
the ferries were In operation .
ono Of the real estate dealers examined as an expert
reports an oIcr Of over SlcoOO~ for TINS properly.
D6nflcss that sum can be obtained for It II 1t we're
offered at public auction because IL Is absolutely
for the ferries and there would lie very safe Sprcu
Iaon In obtaining control Of II. but the appraisers
not 30 iakc into consideration speculative .ais
Of this case fair ard lust valuation cannot exceed
the prices realized upon acual sales OF similar prop
erty ANY Oihrr would think be merely CONJECTURE.
II therefore appears that the appraisal at T9oo,oD
xceciS by S3NI the value OF the 900 feet OF water
front n. ~ 900 pc. foot, it, value ~ proved IN
Glide the land under water In this estimate as ire
value Of the waterfront depends on II.
Il conclude ther,forc that the appraiscmcnt under
this lease Is exec, svc 10 the eNtent Of Tl1o,tDo IN
the value OF the ferry buildings and to the extent OF
s3Ol 600 in the value OF the real estate.
The total OF a575oo deducted from the npprascmcnt
Of -: eO3 900 leaves ~ iO1 the fair and Just
value of tie plant be transferred under the pro.
visions of the lease. That this Is not too small
apncars from the result OF the sal, Of the same
Droprriv NJ public auction in september, $3.50. JUST
prior 10 the appraiScmcn The original le'sccS upon
Inc expiration OF their charter. cut up the property '
nuLllc sale and the syndicate having In Wow the
Organization If the present ferry company made pa
for IL OF 80 10000. They were prepared 10 oner
al least ~ 100000 In case Of competition, but
there none.
This IN the appraised value Is so con,idcr,bi
as to warrant the finding that there was n diSreEhu
on the part Of the arlraors Of the proper hass Oh
valuation and(whOnt any linpntation OF Dad iti,n
or corruption 10 warrant The settlng aside OF INC
appralsemcnt. But the true basis of computation
,s apparcnt and the valuations can be dc'ernin,u
upon the evidence In the case without the nc'eSSiN
OF new npprai semont and II only requires rccE'tloh
10 the extent ~ the found to arrive nj fair
and lust valuation tho defendant company Shouh pc
allowed the option Of conserving To such reduction III
which case the appinScmcnt as fixed aud modlh"d NJ
20 300 900 should be affirmed. OtherwiSc new ap-
praisement must DO ordered.