The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-03
TATEBOARDUPHELD
BRANCH RAILROADS TAXED
SAME AS MAIN STEM.
Opinion of Court Of Errors and Appeals
in Sustaining Assessment Under
the Duhield Act.

TRENTON. july s.-In an opinion
by Justice Fort the Court of Errors
and Appeals yesterday put on rec
ord its definition of main stem rail-
road property. holding, in reversing
the ruling of the Supreme Court in
the case of Jersey City against the
State Board of Assessors and the Lee
high Valley Railroad Company, that
the roadbed of branch ines are in
cluded in that class.
The opinion of the court sustains the
decision of the State Board of Asses
sors, which tbs Supreme Court set
aside. Following is he opinion, in
part.
]. Under the act of 1854 P. L. 1884. ..
1888, d. 269), four distinct elements enter
into the assessment of railroad property
for taxation, namely "a enc CD roa Maln not STEM IN.
ceeding 100 feet in width, with It's raAls
and sleepers, depot buildings. used Tor pas-
senyers connected herewith O.. other
real property; () tangible personal prop
erty: "a franchise. Each of these four
subjects of taxation is inherent In the
property owned by each raiiroad company
organized under the laws Of the state.
.. Each rnilroad corporation owning ana
operating a railroad is taxable under the
statute, and each of the four classes or
property required to be ascertained by the
Board of Assessors must be ascertained as
TO each railroad. and in default Of proof
or other facts. changing the implication
which arises from the organization OF q
Railroad company, the presumption is tDat
the ~roadbed. as laid. under the route rs
filed. Is to be taxed as main stem within
the statutory width; and this applies
whether the railroad conducts u passenger
or freight business or both.
z Marop1 rornGT0fiD0g 0pnra fed nnder
the corporation into which they are merged.
normally retain, for the purposes of taxa
tton under the statute, the same features
with regard to mnin stem and other prop
erty for taxation as ench of the merged
lines possessed at the time of the merger.
4. A main stem must always exist In
every Incorporated railroad p that
Is operated for the transportation of
freight and passengers. however long or
short the railroad may be.
3. In order to tax the property of an in
corporated railroad company within the. 100
feet of its roadbed as property other than
main stem, 1t Is essential. to show, affirma-
lively, facts which establish that 1t is not
being used for the transportation of freight
and passengers, or either.
The judgement of the Supreme Court
sought to be reviewed by the writ in this
case relates TO the finding of hat court
under the statute. as to whether certain
property belonging TO or operated by che
defendant, the Lehigh Valley Railroad
Company. shall be assessed as main stem
under the statute for the taxation of
railroad property. or as other real estate,
under that statute. The Supreme Court
determined that the property was not
main stem, but taxable Under the other
clauses of the statute.
The property in question was assessor
by the State Board Of Assessors as main
that it should be assessed as other real
estate.
What constitutes the main stem of a rail-
road and how is that question to be de-
termined?
After going at length into the laws Of
1884, 1888 and 1890, governing the taxa
ton of railroad property. the opinion
continues:
merged corporations, operated by the con-
solidated corporation. normally retains for
the purposes Of taxation under the statute
the sane features with regard to main
stem and other property MS each of the
merged lines possessed at the time of the
merger. OF course, II It 2 puld. appear that
Of railroad previously existing ceased 10 be
operated for tran sportatloh Of freight or
passengers, In the business oil the merged
company, or other wise. anc vas used, with
in the one hundred feet. for cars at rest
only. then The feature, Of main, Stem might:
the property taxed as other than main stem
under the statute. But, so long as the
road is operated under q merger agree
ment, or under its original { iarter as u
railroad for the transportation Of passen-
gers and merchandise, or either, over its
entire IenRIn, as created IN Its route as
filed, or is operated on the route as con-
or completed. 1t must be deemed.
under the statute. to have a main stem
which is to be taxable as such In the man
ner pointed out in the statute.
The use, therefore. of the railroad, as
laid and operated. may become. and I'M
doubtedly Is. material for the determine
tion CT the question as to what railroad
property is to be taxed MS main stem. and
the only question of fact upon that point
would be vethef the read used was a road
FOR tho 2n0Ffaf.0n Of frpiQhf 0f- nag
sengers or both. over its own length
alone. or over its own length and in con-
~pection with other railroads.
The proof in the case under review
seems to us to be clear. that these lines.
which 1t is claimed are not to be taxed rs
having a main stem because o. tnelr
ley Railroad COMPANY. have not changed
their relations In any way. They are still
operated as railroads, for freight purposes
only, 1t is true. but they were organized
for freight roads. and this. in itself, Is Of
no concern upon the question OF the main
stem.
Both these lineS wnich IT is sought to
tax only as property other than main
stem. lead to terminals, and are abso-
lutely essential to through freight reach
Ing such terminals.
This view of the statute leads to the
conclusion that a main stem must always
exist on every Incorporated company hay
TRANSPORTATION of freight and passengers,
however long or short the railroad may be.
and that. In order 70 tax the property. OF
an incorporated railroad company within
the 100 feet of its roadbed as property
other than main stem. it Is essential to
show affrmatively facts which establish
that 1t is not being used for TRANSPORTS
ton Of passengers and freight or either.
We think that the tax brought up In
this case was rightly assessed by the
State Board of Assessors against the prop
erty as main stem property.
Reaching this result on the law and facts
of the case. there must be a reversal Of
the Supreme Court and an afhrmance OF
the tax as laid by the State Board Of AS
SCISSORS.