
    ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, HOMER C. ZINK, STATE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE OF NEW JERSEY, AND FRANK E. WALSH, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF TAXATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE COMPANIES COMPRISING ITS SYSTEM, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS, AND HOMER C. ZINK, COMMISSIONER OF SAID DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Argued December 20, 1948
    Decided January 17, 1949.
    
      
      Mr. Edward A. Markley argued the cause for the prosecutor-appellant, Erie Railroad Company (Messrs. Markley & Broadhurst, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Benjamin C. Van Tine argued the cause for the defendants-respondents (Mr. Walter D. Van Riper, Attorney-General of New Jersey).
    
      Mr. Joseph A. Davis argued the cause for the prosecutor-appellant, The New York Central Railroad Company and the companies comprising its Sj'stem (Messrs. O’Mara, Conway & Schumann, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Benjamin C. Van Tine argued the cause for the defendants-respondents (Mr. Walter D. Van Riper, Attorney-General of New Jersey).
   Per Curiam.

These appeals are from judgments of the former Supreme Court, which judgments affirm the judgments of the State Department of Taxation and Finance, Division of Tax Appeals confirming assessments for the year 1945 upon certain floating equipment consisting of ferry boats, tugs, lighters, etc., the property of appellants. The judgments in question are affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Eastwood in the former Supreme Court reported in 137 N. J. L. 288 (U948J.

Subsequent to the rendition of the opinion below, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in the case of Debardeleben Coal Corp. v. Ott, 334 U. S. 858, 92 L. Ed. 1479, 68 S. Ct. 1529 (1948). The facts in that case, as set forth in the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 166 Fed. 2d 509 (1948) resemble those in the instant case and the precedent is applicable to the Federal questions here involved and the opinion supports the reasoning of the Court below. While the action of the United States Supreme Court imports no opinion on the merits, (Sunal v. Large, 332 U. S. 174, 67 S. Ct. 1588, 91 L. Ed. 1982 (1946), re-hearing denied 332 U. S. 785, 68.S. Ct. 29, 92 L. Ed. 38 (1947); House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 65 S. Ct. 517, 89 L. Ed. 739 (1945), re-hearing denied 324 U. S. 886, 65 S. Ct. 689, 89 L. Ed. 1435 (1945), its action denotes finality to the case. 28 U. S. C. A. Sec. 1254.

For affirmance: Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wachenkeld, Burling, and Ackerson—7.

For reversal: None.  