People ex rel. W. & J. Sloane v. Barker

27 N.Y.S. 1082, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 454, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 495, 76 Hun 454
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 16, 1894·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FOLLETO, J.

W. & J. Sloane is a business corporation organized in January, 1891, under the laws of New York, with a share capital of $3,000,000, all of which has been paid in, and all of the shares issued. The principal office or place for transacting the financial business of the corporation is and has been kept at Nos. 880 and 888 Broadway. In 1892 the deputy tax commissioner, whose duty it was to value the corporation’s capital for taxation, valued it at $3,000,000, which assessed valuation was entered in the books of the commissioners of taxes and assessments. Afterwards, and on the [1084]*108418th of February, 1892, the corporation, by its treasurer, made, verified, and filed with the commissioners the following statement: “Statement made and delivered to the commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city and county of New York, for and in behalf of the corporation of W. & J. Sloane, showing its condition for thé purpose of assessment on the second Monday of January, 1892:

“Total gross assets on January 1, $7,974,698.87; capital stock actually paid in, or secured to be paid in, $3,000,000.00; amount of surplus earnings, $300,-000.00; rate of dividend of last year, or last annual dividend, $2.00; indebtedness in detail, as follows: Bonds, loans, bills payable, and book accounts, $5,556,118.00.
“Assessed value of real estate (describing particularly by ward and ward map numbers):

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

People ex rel. W. & J. Sloane v. Barker, 27 N.Y.S. 1082, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 454, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 495, 76 Hun 454 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

27 N.Y.S. 1082 (People ex rel. W. & J. Sloane v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Barker
23 Misc. 188 (New York Supreme Court, 1897)