Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Merchants' Real Estate Company, Appellant, v. James L. Wells and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-12-30
Citations: 110 A.D. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Merchants’ Real Estate Company, Appellant, v. James L. Wells and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 194–200

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Merchants’ Real Estate Company, Appellant, v. James L. Wells and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.
First Department,
December 30, 1905.
Tax Law — improper valuation of real éstate in assessing corporate stock and surplus.
It is error for commissioner's of taxes, in ascertaining the amount for which a corporation is liable upon-its corporate stock and surplus, to place upon corporate real estate, which constitutes its entire capital and surplus, a greater value than that placed on the same real estate when assessed for purposes of taxation-as real estate.
Lawhlin and Houghton, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the relator, the Merchants’ Real Estate Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at - the Rew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rew York on the 27th day of June, 1905, dismissing a writ of certiorari theretofore issued herein to review an assessment' for the purpose of taxation for the year 1903. ' ■
Henry W. Hayden, for the appellant.
E. Crosby Kindleberger, for the respondents.

Opinion:
O'Brien, P. J.:
It appears beyond dispute that outside of the small amount of money in the bank, which was offset by an indebtednesss, the entire capital and surplus of the relator consisted of real estate, and that for the purpose of reaching the sum at which the relator was taxed upon its capital and surplus this real estate was placed at a greater value than it was assessed for the pur póse of taxation as real estate. The question, therefore,'presented is whether the same réal- estate can he fixed at a greater value, depending upon whether the inquiry, by the commissioners-is to ascertain the amount for which the reía-' tor is liahle-npon its capital stock and surplus, than it was assessed at for the purpose of taxation as rfeal estate. It may be conceded that there is a difference, but the statute (Tax Law [Laws of 1896, chap. 908], § 21, as amd. by Laws of 1899, chap. 712) expressly provides that in fixing the value of real estate for the purpose of taxation as real estate, the commissioners shall assess it at its full value, and this is the value a,t which the statute (Tax Law, § 12; Id., § 31, as amd. by Laws of 1899, chap. 712) provides it must be fixed when it is considered as part of the capital and surplus of a corporation.
To hold that the commissioners, in disregard of their statutory duty, can fix a different value upon the same property for different purposes, is introducing an element of uncertainty and inconsistency upon a subject that is sufficiently' intricate-and perplexing and which, as shown in People ex rel. New York Real Estate Assn. v. Barker (29 App. Div. 329), if allowed, might, as in that case, result in double taxation.
The order should be reversed, with costs, and the writ sustained.
McLaughlin, J., concurred; Laughlin and Houghton JJ., dissented.