People ex rel. Union Pac. Tea Co. v. Roberts

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Union Pac. Tea Co. v. Roberts

31 N.Y.S. 243, 82 Hun 352, 89 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 352, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 573

DecidedDecember 4, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.Y.S. 243 (People ex rel. Union Pac. Tea Co. v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Union Pac. Tea Co. v. Roberts, 31 N.Y.S. 243, 82 Hun 352, 89 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 352, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 573 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think that relator cannot be deemed either a manufacturing corporation or one wholly engaged in carrying on manufacture within this state, and hence that it was liable to taxation under the provisions of chapter 5-42 of the Laws of 1880 and acts amendatory thereof. The determination of the comptroller as to the amount of capital stock employed by relator in this state should not be overruled, unless on ,the motion for revision it was clearly shown to be wrong. People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558-566, [245]*24529 N. E. 812. After a careful examination of the proofs presented on the motion for a revision, we are unable to say that the reduction of the valuation of relator’s property within the state then made was not all it was entitled to. We think the estimate then made of the value of relator’s property in this state was not shown to be erroneous. An opinion does not seem to be called for in the case. The determination of the comptroller should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We think that relator cannot be deemed either a manufacturing corporation or one wholly engaged in carrying on manufacture within this state, and hence that it was liable to taxation under the provisions of chapter 5-42 of the Laws of 1880 and acts amendatory thereof. The determination of the comptroller as to the amount of capital stock employed by relator in this state should not be overruled, unless on ,the motion for revision it was clearly shown to be wrong. People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558-566, [245]*24529 N. E. 812. After a careful examination of the proofs presented on the motion for a revision, we are unable to say that the reduction of the valuation of relator’s property within the state then made was not all it was entitled to. We think the estimate then made of the value of relator’s property in this state was not shown to be erroneous. An opinion does not seem to be called for in the case. The determination of the comptroller should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.Y.S. 243, 82 Hun 352, 89 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 352, 63 N.Y. St. Rep. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-union-pac-tea-co-v-roberts-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack