Hyperlawhypertext legal database People ex rel. Henry McShane Manufacturing Co. v. Barker 23 A.D. 530

← Cases

People ex rel. Henry McShane Manufacturing Co. v. Barker

23 A.D. 530 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Delivered by Patterson, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 530
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry McShane Manufacturing Company of Baltimore City, Appellant, v. Edward P. Barker and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.

Headnote

Taxation — inconsistent verified statements made by a foreign corporation as to Us liability to taxation.
A foreign, corporation, on March 17, 1896, mude a verified statement in writing to the commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York, that it had invested in its business in the State of New York the total sum of $79,504.13. Upon the 16th of May, 1896, it made another verified statement, which it declared to be supplementary to a previous statement, ‘‘ of its liabilities to taxation,” and on the 25th of May, 1896, filed a third verified statement, in which it claimed to be exempt from taxation upon the ground that its business in this State was simply an agency for the sale of goods.
Seld, that it was the duty of the commissioners'to act judicially upon the statements, and that their conclusion, based upon the first statement, that the relator was subject to taxation would not be disturbed.
Appeal by the relator, the Henry McShane Manufacturing Company of Baltimore- City, from a judgment of the Sirpreme Court, in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the comity of Hew York on the 10th day of March, 1897, upon an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the. clerk of the county of Hew York on the 10th day of March, 1897, dismissing a. writ of certiorari issued to review the proceedings of the defendants.
J. B. Green, for the appellant.
James M. Ward, for the respondents.

Thé appeal from the order of the Special Term, dismissing the writ of certiorari in this case brings up two questions. The first is similar to that considered in the Yellow Pine Lumber Co. Case (ante, p. 524), and the same disposition is made of it as in- that case. The other question relates to the right of the: commissioners to make any assessment of the relator’s property within this State, and it is claimed that the facts appearing before the commissioners bring the relator within the rule laid down by this coui’t in

p. 531
the case of The People ex rel. Sherwin Co. v. Barker ( 5 App. Div. 246 ). This case does not fall within that rule. The petition indicates that the only ground of complaint is that of overvaluation. But it is further made to appear that there were in the possession of the commissioners statements and returns submitted by the relator, which are entirely inconsistent with its claim that it was not doing' business in the State of New York in such a manner so as to render its property within the State liable to taxation. On the 17 th' of March, 1896, the relator made a statement, in writing, that it had invested in its business in the State of New York, including the value of its office furniture, safe, samples and fixtures, money in bank-and otherwise used in its business, the sum of $79,504.13. This is specifically stated to be the “ total sum invested in business in this State.” On the 16th day of May, 1896, it made a supplementary statement, in which it declared that “ this company heretofore and on or "about April 7th, 1896, made and delivered to the said commissioners of taxes and assessments a statement for and of its liabilities to taxation, to which • statement this is supplementary.” On the twenty-fifth of May the relator filed with the commissioners a verified statement, in which it claimed to be exempt from taxation for the reason that- its business in the State of New York was simply an agency for the sale of goods.

All the' statements submitted were verified, and it was the duty of the ( commissioners to act judicially upon them all, and, in so doing, they have accepted the sworn statements first put in as they had the right to do, and with their determination in that matter we are not disposed to interfere.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey and O’Brien, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited