In re Erie Railroad
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This is a controversy over the taxation of certain property in Jersey City. The property in question consists of elevator pier No. 1, and an elevator building thereon, extending into tide-rwater at Harsimus Cove, on the Hudson river, and situate adjacent to the terminus of the Erie railroad, at Pavonia Ferry, on the Hudson.
Read the full summary
This is a controversy over the taxation of certain property in Jersey City. The property in question consists of elevator pier No. 1, and an elevator building thereon, extending into tide-rwater at Harsimus Cove, on the Hudson river, and situate adjacent to the terminus of the Erie railroad, at Pavonia Ferry, on the Hudson. The property was assessed by the state board of assessors under the act for the taxation of railroad and canal property, annually, for the years 1884 to 1897, inclusive. The pier was assessed by the board at a valuation of $92,960 until 1888 ; after 1888 the assessment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Depue, J.
The premises in question are owned in fee by the Long Dock Company. They were leased by the Long Dock Company to the New York and Erie Railway Company, to whose rights the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company succeeded. Articles of agreement were made and executed February 13th, 1879, between the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, party of the first part; the Long Dock Company, party of the second part; and Jesse Hoyt, party of the third part. It was therein recited that the business of the party of the first part…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Detroit Union Railroad Depot & Station Co. v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Illinois Central Railroad v. People ex rel. HodgesIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
- State v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1888
- County of St. Louis v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Gilkerson v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pitney v. WalshNew Jersey Tax Court · 1947