New York County NyArchives Court.....Fairfield, Chemical Co Vs. Michael Coleman 1889
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.org/ny/nyfiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 1, 2008, 11:52 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - New York
Written: 1889

First Department, March Term, 1889.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THE FAIRFIELD CHEMICAL COMPANY, 
Respondent, v. MICHAEL COLEMAN and Others, Commissioners of Taxes, etc., 
Appellants.

Assessment of a corporation for the purposes of taxation — deduction, from the 
assessment for personalty, of the value of real estate owned by it.

The deduction which is to be made from the amount of the assessment for personal 
property against a corporation in this State, because of its ownership of real 
estate in another State, is to be measured by the actual value and not by the 
assessed value of such real estate.

Appeal from an order of the New York Special Term of December, 1888, reversing 
the action of the commissioners of assessment and taxation of New York city, 
upon a certiorari issued under chapter 269, of 1880, to review an assessment for 
the purpose of taxation for the year 1888, made in reference to the personal 
property of the relator.

George S. Coleman, for the appellants.

William Man, for the respondent.

Brady, J.:

It appears in this matter that the real estate of the respondent was situate in 
the town of Black Rock, near Bridgeport, in the State of Connecticut, and, 
indeed, all its personal property was there situate; the business place in this 
city being kept exclusively for the sale of the product of its chemical works.

The appellants, in estimating the amount which should be taxed, deducted from 
the real estate what was denominated its assessed value instead of its actual 
value, the difference between these values being very considerable. The learned 
justice in the court below determined upon the cases of the People ex rel. The 
Twenty-third Street Railroad Company v. The Commissioners of Taxes, etc. (95 N. 
Y., 554), and the People ex rel. The Panama Railroad Company v. The Same (104 
id., 240) that the mode adopted by the appellants was erroneous, and in this 
conclusion he is undoubtedly sustained by the authorities mentioned. Whatever 
may be the result of a further consideration of the question, if there should be 
any other in the court of last resort, these adjudications declare the rule 
emphatically. The deduction made in the Panama case was of the actual value, and 
the court, per Andrews, J., in considering the propriety of that mode, said: "It 
is true that the deduction on account of the real estate is not, in terms, of 
the assessed value," and then suggesting that the legislature in directing a 
deduction of the assessed value of the real estate, doubtless, had primarily in 
view domestic corporations with real estate located here, said "but the assessed 
value of real estate is, in theory, its actual value, and where a corporation 
liable to taxation under the Laws of 1857 has real estate in another State or 
country, the just construction of the statute, as applied to a corporation so 
situated, requires that the deduction shall be measured by its actual value." 
And the case in 95 New York (supra), was quoted as sustaining such a rule.

It is thought by the counsel for the appellant that the question of the assessed 
value was not before that court, a proposition which cannot be sustained. Unless 
he means by that that the assessed value in figures was not mentioned. The 
difference between the assessed value and the actual value, and the application 
of the different modes suggested by these different valuations, was considered 
and applied. We do not purpose to enter into a discussion of the propriety of 
these decisions, but to apply them in all kindred cases as the learned justice 
in the court below did, and as we think properly. Indeed the order appealed from 
might very well be affirmed upon the opinion rendered in the court below.

Ordered accordingly; judgment affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred. 

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New 
York. Marcus T. Hun, Reporter. Volume LIX, 1889, HUN 52. Banks & Company, 
Albany, NY. 1901.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.org/ny/newyork/court/fairfiel709gwl.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/nyfiles/

File size: 4.7 Kb