New York Bay Railroad v. City of Newark
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 51 Vroom 146. An -assessment for benefits for paving Rose avenue in the city of Newark was sustained by the Supreme Court as to a lot of land having a frontage of seventy-five feet on Rose avenue and a depth of one hundred feet, said lot being a part of the right of way of the plaintiff in error not occupied by its tracks. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Garrison, J.
In the case, of United New Jersey Railroad Co. v. Jersey City, 26 Vroom 129, we held that “where an authorized right of way has been acquired, over which a railroad has been constructed and is in good faith operated, which right of way is not devoted to another purpose, it is used for railroad purposes within the meaning of the statute considered, although it may not, for the time being, be wholly occupied by tracks or other railroad appliances.”
The statute referred to was “An act for the taxation of railroad and canal property” (Pamph. L.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United New Jersey Railroad v. Mayor of Jersey CitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
- State v. City of PassaicSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
- Hansen v. De VitaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Barre v. Barre & Chelsea RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Wabash Ry. Co. v. City of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- City of San Diego v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- City of Alcoa v. Louisville & N. R.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1925
- Pitney v. WalshNew Jersey Tax Court · 1947