*1 TEEM, MAKCH 1934. 131 100 N. Board, J. L. United New charge its considered, entirety it did not cure the al leged vice, and the rale should be A applied. is not jury required to determine what of a part contradictory charge Sandt, correct. v. State 95 49. N. J. This L. rule clearly to the inapplicable charge under discussion. It falls within that other rale, well-recognized that the whole must be charge looked Co., at. v. Sullivan North Hudson 51 Id. 542: Veader, 728; Veader v. 89 Brown Id. 79 Id. Spence, Carlo, 452; 633; Kargman Id. v. Phillips Shoeffler Co., 90 burg Horse Car Railroad Id. 235. so re And when garded, if was it there is no-error. right, The instruction a whole, be construed as rule, was de legal clared, thus extracted. State v. State v. Sage, Banusik, 84 Id. 640. Court is judgment reversed and Circuit Court is affirmed. County

For affirmance —Hone.

For reversal —The Chanoelloe, Justice, Chiee Tken- Pabkeb, Mintuejni, Lloyd, White, chaed, Gaeb- Yaw JJ. neb, Buskibic, Clakk, McGlbnwon, COMPANY; UNITED JERSEY AND NEW RAILROAD CANAL LESSEE; COMPANY, THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; COMPANY, LONG DOCK ERIE RAILROAD LESSEE; DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, RAILROAD v. STATE BOARD ASSESSMENT, AND BEE, OF TAXES NEWTON A. K. BUG COMPTROLLER, ETC., APPELLANTS. May Argued March 1024 Decided Judgments of the different valuations taxation the assessment from that of the state must be board of taxes evidence to sustained. AHD OF ERRORS APPEALS. COURT N. J. Co. v. &e. 100 *2 property as- of taxes and the board 2. The state evidence, supported by aside, when set sessment statute, “using their in the The error. personal judgment,” applied. Comp. Stat. 1888, p. J., p. 16; Pamph. N. § from On Court. appeal Wall, For the & respondents, Haight, Carey HaHpence, Collins & Corbin and Maximilian M. Stallman.

For the P. appellants, Edward Stout.

The of the court delivered by The is from these cases appeal judgments as- entered in the Court. That court reduced the year sessment for taxation for the 1922 on fourteen pieces of the The are located prosecutors. properties Hoboken, the Hudson river. City facing Jersey terms, In prosecutors. general the terminal lands of river, east on the are bounded they Greene, west Provost and Henderson streets. Henderson street from to Hoboken. On south Jersey City runs street, street Second Montgomery Exchange place, street, north Hoboken. by 'Perry On Jersey City. within subway building now The of the vehicular portal Twelfth and Henderson streets. bounds, Preyost, at above or iden- The described assessed shortly properties tified thus: Hew Railroad Jersey of the United properties lessee, Railroad Company, Canal the Pennsylvania Company,

are— n acre; $20,000 at acres, assessed per Area 12.731 First. $203,696. is in case plot If this total, $254,620, reduced to JjSTo. it is affirmed. York Company, Hew Bair as to its location. in the record confusion There is some $95,000 acre; acres, assessed at per Area 30.564 Second. $2,682,908. total, $2,903,580, reduced TERM, 100 N. J. L. United New acre; acres, $95,000 at per Area 3.623 assessed

Third. to.$318,026. total, $344,185, reduced acre; $88,100 acres, per Area 98.835 assessed Fourth. $7,412,625. $8,707,363, reduced to total, acre; $88,100 acres, per 6.682 Area assessed Fifth. $501,150. (cid:127)total, $588,684, reduced to Erie Rail- Company, properties lessee, are— road Company, acre; $87,000 per acres, 16.555

First. Area $1,251,625. $1,440,285, reduced total, acre; assessed at Area Second. 67.830 $5,087,250. total, $6,104,700, reduced acre; assessed at Third. Area 2.816 $211,200. $253,440, reduced total, *3 acre; $90,000 per acres, 3.164 assessed Fourth. Area $237,300. $284,760, reduced to total, and Western Delaware, Lackawanna The properties are— Railroad Company acre; $95,000 per acres, Area 131.840 assessed

First. $10,547,200. total, $12,524,800, reduced acre; acres, assessed at Area 40.068 Second. $3,205,440. $3,846,528, reduced to total, acre; $75,000 per 1.525 acres, Third. Area $99,125. total, $114,375, reduced acre; assessed at Area 3.240 Fourth. $275,400. total, $307,800, reduced acre; $96,000 per assessed at 3.728 Fifth. Area $316,880. total, $357,888, reduced for tlie of property fourteen pieces The assessments made by The assessments $38,033,008. 1922 totaled year $5,- a reduction $32,339,825, totaled Supreme 693,187. of property the assessment underlying

The legal principles in this court. questions are no debatable longer for taxation this examined, applied re-asserted have been these cases, involving Court in many the Supreme court and a 1884, which created act of since the identical properties, class of property. valuing assessors board of special 134- COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS.

. United New N. 100 J. L. Cases these illustrating principles applied to- this class of discussion are: Long v. State Co. Assessors, Board J.N. 86 592; Long Dock Co. State v. ; Assessors, Board Id. 89 108 Central Railroad Co. State Board 1; Id. 48 Id. other cases Many in our will reports there be found collected and cited.

The only question to- presented us for decision the record of is, cases Is there evidence to support these of fact findings Supreme Court? Long Dock Assessment, Co. v. Board Taxes N. J. L. Delaware, Newark, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co. We think there is no evidenice to support findings fact made Court. in its does not opinion, record, state the evidence from the on which however, its It, reason, are based. findings recite, does as a made, the reductions were why to the Erie referring group, “we still are unable one such advances in agree great “in the Lack year fairly supported by evidence/5 awanna a similar somewhat will be made.55 group disposition “What we have said about the Erie tracts55 adjoining ap however, to the plicable Pennsylvania This, is not group. if ground there evidence to- reversing judgments, them, be fo-und the record to not recited although voluminous, that court in its con record opinion. volumes, of three record of sisting large making eighteen hundred and sixteen pages. *4 therefore, the as shown analyze

We proceed, evidence^ the record. Like all cases which evidence is presented of or the value of determining given for the purpose estate, time, at when not offered any given of real piece into two- classes —sales sale, such evidence is divided generally To the witnesses. use expert of other lands and testimony is thus brief, the sales evidence of the prosecutors5 the tes to- the schedule sales and summarized, according cent, frontage of the Hudson river twenty-five per timony; 1921. between the 1915 and years was sold count}’’ Hoboken, Weehawken City, lands Jersey The sales were TERM, 1924. 100 iV. J. L. Co. v. sales,

and North high There were twelve and the Bergen. est The ranged $54,227 $68,200 from prices per acre. lands of the river in prosecutors Jersey on the Hoboken and from $87,000 the state City board $96,000 evident, therefore, per acre. It the quite a com Court could not have its judgment solely the parison sold, of the lands with the hypothetical prices the prices of market value of the under investigation. lands It least observed, that Weehawken is at passing, now if not from nearest lands mile, further, point dis North several times that investigation; Bergen It is reason tance. also clear that the lands assessed by do change use as large tlioir railroad lands plots market value can market, in the so that their hands open It usual lots. applicable city ascertained method acreage of like clear that have been no other lands also there h> time or sold in the market from open use the locality com lands can be time, to the market value is a hypo The market value pared. criterion established hence, sale; hypothetical thetical would-be buyers v. City not actual and buyers, existing purchasers. Turnley L. 42. of Elizabeth, testify. witnesses to expert called four prosecutors In the witnesses to expert testify. state called three and Canal the highest group New

United Jersey witness were one the prosecutors’ experts valuation fixed by $80,000 (record, acre per the 30.564-acre tract Huntley, $75,000 As to acre. witness per the other 48), page $80,- the value four witnesses fixed tract, 3.623-acre acre dollars Record, per thousand Seventy page on, below Then so $65,000, value. next highest was the $70,500 one wit- group, In the that figure. $65,- the next was figure; the highest one as to piece ness In 'that figure. below other estimations acre, 000 per Company Western Railroad Delaware, Lackawanna value is the page 49) highest (record, acre group acre says Ryer experts. prosecutors’ Record, tract. page of the same $45,740 for part part, *5 COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS. J. L. 100IV. The values testified to are experts schedules into and exhibits at page et of the record, and a like seq., schedule of Hudson river water front sales-. P Exhibit page

With these sales of factors, and evidence expert witnesses, what are the conclusions be to drawn in terms of valuation; what tribunal drawn, be they and what method comparison to- be applied. These are the prob- lems presented for solution.

A legal result cannot be reached simply the basis of an in increase assessments oné year, seems be large, or because the average increase of under assessments investigation with other property is estimated at forty-two cent. Railroad,

In the case of the Central Co. v. State Board of 1, 9, 49 N. J. L. Chief Justice speaking- Beasley, fox the said: “We do not that we consider have the or annul of the right to alter any proceedings body officers, error, for it not to statute in declares overlooked that the question expressly these assessors ‘shall entitled use their personal a ca as to the value of knowledge judgment property/ with court is endowed legisla which this pacity must have intended ture/5 legislature the statute to have a meaning purpose. {his- and con-

It quite reading bewildering obvious was. The board use purpose record'what fusing gained experi- the personal plot- the evidence and the unusual this to- ence, applying in their lands investigation, location ting lands, of which is offered the sale price relation other expert and on which the for comparison evidence witnesses based. statute, mandate of the the plain courts cannot ignore Chosen said, in case of Board

for, Douglass as Freeholders, the courts it is no province an apt this case is The record legislation. to supervise such inserting of the legislature o-fthe wisdom illustration *6 TEEM, 13? ' 100 N. J. L. United New provision the statute. The conclusions of this board fixing valuations not be aside, set error, to use the of Chief So, Justice this Beasley. court has said, this class of cases, where the Supreme Court dealt with the of weight evidence on the question valuation, it properly that required the evidence should pre ponderate against the valuation of the state board it before would be set aside. It well and on the recognized, plainest principles justice, that even of a judgment, court, legally erroneous, if there is no it, evidence to since support without evidence its judgment is no better than an arbitrary- edict. This court held, then that the state board could not cent, add twenty the valuations on which the on experts both sides substantial accord and without arbitrarily evidence. Co. State Board 592, 596. So, the personal and judgment pos sessed by the state board does not something mean added the valuations and without evidence. arbitrarily hand, On the other the effect of our re adjudications that, review, on quire the courts should not set aside the judg ments of the valuations, state tribunal which on evidence.

We have therefore judgments the which are to be sustained reasons stated sought court, which are if not untenable. unsatisfactory, entirely These are rested as to valuation at a where neither set point, and at somewhere experts agree, point between high court, and low values fixed the two sets of experts, ap statute, overlooked the having parentiy, provision declares that assessors shall these be entitled expressly to use their ascertain personal knowledge value of the assessed. 4 from the evidence the ing Stat., Pamph. L. Comp. p. p. § therefore, record, and conclude, We after considering stated, for the reasons judgments three are without groups appeal involved in aside them. are therefore set evidence legal COURT ERRORS AND OP APPEALS. n Cartel- Allenhurst. reversed, and the of the state board of taxes judgments are affirmed.

DELAWARE, AND WESTERN RAILROAD LACKAWANNA AND ASSESS

COMPANY v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES MENT. I to affirm on the below with vote

Gardner, reductions therein as to- exception parcels as, No-. 5 my of 40.068 of 3.728 No. evidence to same. judgment, *7 there was no AND UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD CANAL COMPANY TAXES AND ASSESSMENT. v. STATE Of BOARD with to affirm on the below I vote Gardner, No. therein made as to parcels of the reduction exception acres, as, No. 4 of 3.623 m judg- 3 of 30.564 my the same. ment, there was no evidence to support Justice, For Katzenbach, Chief affirmance n — n JJ. Lloyd, Gardner, White, Chancellor, For Minturn, Kalisch, reversal —The Clark, JJ. Buskirk, McGlennon, Van CARTER, RESPONDENT, HARRIS OF LEONA BOROUGH ALLENHURST, APPELLANT. May 19, March 1924 Decided Submitted operated swimming pool, borough A. owned and with 1. The annexed, patrons. rented to Included houses bath patrons checking of the valuables rendered was the the services bathing. C., father had for her the rented L. H. whose when employe house, delivered to the claimed to have use of a bath Sunday, July 30th, keeping charge of valuables on of the safe .