New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-11-28
MANHATTAN ROAD WINS.
COURT OF APPEALS CUTS ITS ASSESS
MENT TO 50 4a2 307.
COMPANY MUST PAT BACK TAXES AMOUNT
ING 70 TEREE-QCARTERs OF
MILLION.

A.ba-y. Nov. THE decision CO the Court Of Ap
pals Il the case ot the Manhattan Elevated Rail-
roz5 to-6av 1xes III value Ct the property assess
able fo- city purposes II New-Fork a. < 49, ST
ms : : reduction q almost one-saf from the
amount hxea by ne local Board % Assessors and
& Il = sense victory for the company although
the taxable value 90 The city viii De added the
above mentioned szrn. realizing ~ least annually
between sI5a % and szslaJ5, which the Rad viii
have pay In addition % fixing the value Of
ne properly for future assessment the decision
co1npels the payment Of back taxes On the same
amount since IEs5 tie last year that the road paid
any assessment This will amount 20 nearly sISt,oH1
The Manhattan company attacked the assessment
IN 1sa4 They paid the taxes that year. and tie
following amounting 70 nearly klSc,sh under
proIssr. and have paid since. The company
secured writ II review the assessment. and The
decisions AZ frs, went in favor Of than The
sessnen, was for ST 5so7-z Justice Beach vacated
this. The general term reversed him but the
Court II Appeals ordered re-assessrnent- TIE
rev Assessment Fixed the value al $3.50, s55. This
was fought on The same grounds. Justice Nash de-
c.d@d n favor q the city Then the taken
q The Court o. Appeals which avoid further liz
CATION. a1ss the vaiue q The property
The Cou-t was divided the decision Judge
Ea.gh. wrcte ,he prevailing opinion, which was
coacu-red in D. Chief Judge Parker and Judges
Bartlett. Martin and Vann. Judge o Br.sn gave
dissenting opinion. in which Judge Landon con
cured excep; as 70 the two items q land dam
ages and open accounts, treated q BY the Appel
.a;e Division, as 70 which Judge Lanton expresses
OPTION IN his opinion Judge Ha:ght Gays;
The Special Term found the value Of the
.stors assets. after making the proper Deductions
vas &.s4A15-; also that the relator had paid Al
annual dividend - Per upon capital
sock .: 81 GZ5.ZFJ. and had Z surplus besides
ard finally that the Commissioners were justified
= assuming r-ar ire capita! stock o. the relator
remained u.iEpared ard that the assesgabIe value
= 80 assets El5,5Z6 80 as determined by the
Corr.ss.o1eEs and that their assessment should be
confirmed. Evidence. however, may be Introduced
showing that Ihe capital stock Of company iE
impaired ~ he existence q debts which evidence
Il believed. oVeTcOnles the presumption that might
otherwise ex!st. II this the Indebtedness dis
c-osed BY the rel4tcr consisted 81 mortgages bonds
ard judgments, about which there now appears 70
u 10 controversy a 70 the facts. II would seem,
therefore, mat the 'Irezu-nption vas overcome py
tEe evidence nd the assessment should De made IT.
accordance with thE testimony and not based upon
t!le presumption that the capital stock remained
un,YnparEd.
The Appellate Division could have modified the
order ~ he Social Term y could have reversed
he order and SENT the proceedings back for re-
a. l. however. should not have vacated
the assessment absolutely. The order u the Ap-
Del4a;e Division should b reversed, and the order
u The Special Term modified. 70 reduce the
assessment Of the REALTORS property 10 the sum Of
St 5JZ 50T. and as 80 modified affirmed with costs
q this appeal 70 the appellants.