Case Name: THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1912-11-18
Citations: 83 N.J.L. 784
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 784–791

Head Matter:
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TAXES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Submitted July 6, 1912
Decided November 18, 1912.
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is expressed in the following per curiam:'
Per Curiam.
This is a writ of certiorari sued out by the city of Hobo-ken directed to the board of equalization of taxes of New Jersey, the Morris and Essex Railroad Company, the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, lessee, the Hoboken Perry Company and the collector of taxes of Hoboken, removing the judgment of said board rendered on the appeal of the above ferry and railroad companies from an assessment for taxation for the year 1908, against their property located in Hoboken, known as the Lower Perry. By the local assessment the lands were valued at $1,470,000 and the improvements at $440,000.
The return shows that upon an appeal taken by the defendants from this local assessment to the Hudson county board of taxation, the right of the local assessors to assess the property, as well as the valuation placed thereon, were affirmed. An appeal was then prosecuted by the defendants to the hoard of equalization of taxes of New Jersey on the grounds, among others—
First. That the property taxed was second-class railroad property, the same being lands used for railroad purposes other than the main stem, and therefore not subject to local taxation, and asserting that the assessment made by the local authorities should be annulled.
Second. That the assessments upon all the properties enumerated should he revised and corrected.
It appeared that the entire property had been assessed by the state hoard of assessors as second-class railroad property and the taxes had been paid; that the assessors of the city of Hoboken had also assessed the same property, claiming that the entire property was not used for railroad purposes.
The board of equalization then held that—
“The evidence in'this case shows clearly that the only part of the ferry buildings used for local purposes is the lower floor, and, from the evidence, it is also clearly apparent that this use is three-fourths local and one-fourth railroad use.”
The hoard then rendered judgment “that the assessment of $1,170,000 on the land as assessed by the city be canceled because said land is used for railroad purposes and is not subject to assessment locally, and that the assessment of $440,-000 on'said improvements be canceled, because said improvements are used for railroad purposes and not subject to assessment locally, excepting the first floor of the main ferry terminal building, which floor is used in the main for local and not railroad travel and uses; and that as to the said first floor, the assessment thereof locally is hereby fixed and apportioned at its market value of $85,000, and for said last-mentioned sum the local assessment for improvements is sustained.”
From this judgment the city of Hoboken has prosecuted this writ of certiorari. The defendants apparently are not raising any objection to the determination of the matter.
The city contends that the determination of the hoard of taxation of New Jersey is wrong, in that, while it admits that a part of the ferry terminal building is used to a definite extent locally, which is readily ascertainable, yet declares that no part of the land, upon which- the building is located is assessable locally, and insists that such proportionate part of the land is assessable locally as that part of the building used for local purposes and not for railroad travel or use hears to the entire building.
In other words, the insistence of the city is, that the assessment of the land, as well as of the buildings, should be apportioned and dealt with partially by the local assessors and partially by the state hoard of taxation.
The act of 1888 entitled “An act to revise and amend ‘An act for the taxation of railroad and canal property/ approved April tenth, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four” (Pamph. L. 1888, p. 269), provides “that all the property of any railroad or canal company not used for railroad or canal purposes shall be assessed and taxed by the same assessors, and in the same manner and at the same rate as the taxable property of other owners in the same municipal division or taxing district;” and further provides “that all property of any railroad and of any canal company used for railroad or canal purposes shall be assessed by a state board of assessors.”
The distinction would seem to he that when property is used for railroad purposes, it ceases to he taxable locally; otherwise taxes upon it must be levied by the taxing authorities of the municipality .in which it is situate.
This court, however, has held, In the matter of the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Co. 46 Vroom 334, that the principle of exemption from local taxation must be extended so as to include such part of a ferry-house used in connection with a railroad for its terminal, as is used and is reasonably necessary to carry on such ferry for the use of passengers and freight arriving by railroad trains. That such use is for railroad purposes, but that the portion of the ferry-house mainly devoted to the accommodation of local passengers and vehicles is subject to local'taxation.
This case is binding upon this court and to the extent to which it has gone, viz., as applicable to a building or buildings, it must be sustained.. But under the phraseology of the act above stated, the principles enunciated in this ease should not be extended any further and will not be made applicable to the same plot of ground upon which is located a building thus jointly used for local and railroad'purposes upon which an assessment has been apportioned in tlie above manner.
The judgment, therefore, of the board of equalization of taxes of New Jersey must be affirmed.
Ecu the plaintiff in error. Horace L. Allen (John J. Fallon on the brief).
For the defendant in error, William T). Edwards (Edwards & Smith on the brief).

Opinion:
I'un Curiam.
This ease was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the decision in Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Jersey City, 51 Vroom 298. Onr decision in that case justifies the result reached by the Supreme Court in the present case. It is unnecessary to decide whether that result does justice to the railroad company sinee they do not appeal. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.