
    The People ex rel. Union Pacific Tea Company, App’lt, v. James A. Roberts, as Comptroller, etc., Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, Ceneral Term, Third Depwrtment;
    
    
      Filed December 4, 1894.)
    
    1. Taxes—Corporations—Exemptions.
    A corporation, engaged in mixing teas and roasting, mixing and grinding coffee, is not a manufacturing corporation, within the meaning of chap. 542 of 1880.
    2. Same—Comptroller’s decision.
    The determination of the comptroller as to the amount of capital stock, employed by a foreign corporation in this state, will not be overruled, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong.
    Application for writ of certiorari to review tax.
    Relator deals in teas, coffees, spices, and baking powder, and claims exemption from taxation on the ground that it is a manufacturing corporation. Relator’s process of manufacture was described by one of its officers as follows: “We take tea in the original state, and expend labor upon it, by which we produce a mixture known as a special manufacture. We mix different kinds of tea together, and that makes a combination tea, and we ship it in that form. That is all we do, so far as manufacture is concerned. Forty-five per cent, of the tea we sell is treated in that way, and the remaining fifty-five per cent, we sell straight, just as we purchase it. We manufacture coffee. We buy in the raw state, roast it, bag part of it, and another part of it is ground and mixed and sold in that condition. Rmety-seven per cent, of the coffee we handle is treated in that way, and three per cent, sold straight. The coffee is purchased in New York, and a great portion of it is shipped in bags direct to our store, and put in bins. To illustrate: We take bags of coffee, roast it, and ship it to our store in Albany. In some instances we mix different kinds of coffee together, and that makes a combination coffee. That is all. The spices we buy boxed, ard ship to our stores. Baking power we take'in cans, box it, and ship it No change is made in it, or in the spices or condensed milk.”
    
      Charles H. Luscomb, for relator; Theodore F. Hancock, Atty. Gen. {John W. Hogan, of counsel)-, for resp’t.
   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 542 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 ex rel. Am. C. & D. Co. v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 558-566; 42 St. Rep. 400. 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.  