TWENTY-THIRD ST RY. CO. v. NEW YORK, 199 U.S. 53 (1905)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 199 U.S. 53
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/53/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/53/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
TWENTY-THIRD ST RY. CO. v. NEW YORK, 199 U.S. 53 (1905)
199 U.S. 53
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. TWENTY-THIRD STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS.
No. 75.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CENTRAL CROSSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. No. 76.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. No. 77.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. No. 78.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CONEY ISLAND & BROOKLYN RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS. No. 80.
Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, 80.
Argued April 17, 18, 19, 1905.
Decided May 29, 1905.
Messrs. William D. Guthrie, Elihu Root, and Frank H. Platt for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Julius M. Mayer and Louis Marshall for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
While these cases differ in some details from the two preceding,
in which opinions have just been announced, there are no such differences as put them outside the scope of the reasoning of those opinions. Therefore, the judgments in them are affirmed.