Page images
PDF
EPUB

Appeal of Hill School from Assessment for Taxation.

[ocr errors]

did it might be something more. * If I had it as a school to sell I would not know who would buy it." Then on re-cross examination he declares that he did consider it as a school property, but he adds, "If another school, about like the Hill School, were to come along at the time they wanted to sell it, it would bring considerably more, they might go as high as one half million." "I think the prestige of the school is worth more than the real estate. I make my estimate entirely on the real estate." "I did not value the prestige or good will, that is not real estate."

**

The third witness, Mr. Wanger, had even less regard for the property as a school. He says, "I doubt whether there would be any buyers for a school." He valued the land at $88,000 and the buildings at $312,000, making a total of $400,000. He did not think there were buyers for it as a school property, so he "figured that laying it out in lots would be the only method."

Question "Then you throw out the building as a school property because you think there could be no real value for it as that sort of a property; that its highest market value could not be obtained for school purposes?" Answer, "Yes." He added,-"As a school it is worth more than $400,000.”

"I discarded the school purposes for which this property could be used in my estimate.' 'He concludes by declaring that it is worth $500,000 for school purposes.

These witnesses divided the property and gave to each part a value, but the two uses forming the basis of their valuations are incompatible. If the property were applied to building lot uses, the school use must be eliminated. To add two separate estimates is to duplicate, in part at least, the value of the property.

13. The evidence submitted by the county commissioners is still more unsatisfactory. Assessors did the best they could to determine the proper assessment of the property. As experts to value real estate they failed to show sufficient qualifications, where a property of this kind is involved. They all admitted that where a valuable property, and large buildings are concerned, like the Hill School, they would have to rely upon information derived from others to fix the value. Their evidence shows that this is just what they did do. They were informed by Mr. Millhouse that the property was worth over one million dollars, and that Mr. Millhouse obtained this knowledge from some one not disclosed to them. They were also

VOL. XXXVI-No. 15

Appeal of Hill School from Assessment for Taxation.

informed by him that this valuation was entered at Harrisburg. There was no offer to show any return made by the appellant to the Auditor General's office.

The assessors were competent to show how the assessment was made, but as experts to give the value of this property they were not qualified. The law, however, authorizes and requires an assessor to exercise his judgment, based upon his belief as to what he considers the value of the property. No other witnesses were called by the County Commissioners.

It would seem that some expert could be found with sufficient knowledge of the value of properties of this character to give us reliable and competent testimony. We recognize the difficulty that confronted the Commissioners, because such properties are not usually in the market, and many elements, factors and conditions enter into the inquiry. Perhaps there are few persons of the requisite knowledge and experience to give a reliable opinion as to the value of the Hill School property.

14. Upon consultation with the parties to the proceedings, we suggested that further testimony be submitted, before the Court. After some delay we were informed that no additional witnesses would be called.

DISCUSSION

As already intimated, the evidence before us is not satisfactory. The witnesses admit that this property has its highest value when considered for the uses of a school. It is a well equipped preparatory school, and the buildings and improvements were all made with that purpose in view. It was used for many years with marked success for no other use than a preparatory school.

To divide it into parts and value one portion for building purposes and the other for farming uses, then add the two sums does not give the true value of the property. Such treatment casts out of consideration the all important use which gives to the property its true and highest value.

When the assessment, as approved by the board of revision, was offered in evidence, the county made out a prima facia case. The burden then rested upon the appellant to show by the weight of the evidencethat it was aggrieved by the valuation so fixed:-Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co.'s Assessment, 225 Pa., 276.

"The weight of the evidence should be decisive with the Court, and the burden is always on the litigants to introduce the evidence

Appeal of Hill School from Assessment for Taxation.

relied on to support their respective contentions. It is not for the Court to fix the value of a tract of land at what he as an individual might think it was worth, but his conclusions should be based upon the evidence introduced by the parties. If the testimony is conflicting, as it always is, in such cases, it is the duty of the Court to consider the same and decide the issue involved, having due regard to the weight of the evidence"-Lehigh Coal Co. vs. The County Commissioners, 250 Pa., 515.

The witnesses for the appellant were limited to a consideration of the property that was too restricted. There are certain improvements, appurtenances and equipments that should be included and considered in fixing the assessed value of the property. The machinery and equipment of a mill are property that must be taxed as real estate:-Patterson vs. Delaware Co., 70 Pa., 381.

"Everything necessary to perfect the establishment and fit if for the use designed is a part of the real estate."-Wangler's Estate, 51 Pa., Superior Ct., 627.

"All elements of intrinsic value tending to give the property a market value should be considered in fixing the value for taxation, such as machinery, equipment and permanent improvements to the extent that they may affect market value."-Penna. Staves Co.'s Apeal, 236 Pa., 103.

An examination of the testimony before us shows that some of these matters were withdrawn from the consideration of the witnesses.

Taxes must be uniform,and if the ratio of value, in the county, for taxation, is below the market value, the assessor must recognize this ratio in valuing all classes of real estate. "It will not do to assess farm lands at one-fifth their actual value, dwelling houses at one-third, manufacturing establishments at one-half, and coal lands at full value." "The rule of uniformity must be applied to all kinds of real esate as a class." Dela. S. & W. R. R. Co.'s Assessment, 224 Pa., 240.

*

*

From the testimony relating to this inquiry we do not see how the appellant's property can be assessed at a figure beyond sixty per centum of its market value.

The difficulty in fixing such value arises from the fact that there are no similar properties for comparison, and no sales of other properties of like character.

Whenever the market value can be ascertained by sales of

Appeal of Hill School from Assessment for Taxation.

lands of like quality, similarly situated, or by recent sales of the lands being assessed, the stautory rule contemplates this method of establishing market value. If, however, there were no sales from which the general selling price might be ascertained, the market value may be established by the testimony of persons acquainted with the property and whose knowledge and experience qualify them to form an intelligent judgment as to proper valuation." Coal & Iron Co. vs. County Commissioners, 229 Pa., 467.

The expert witnesses called had no "knowledge and experience" covering the factors and elements that give value to a property like the Hill School.

The uses which this property possess, and for which it is best adapted, is for school purposes. This use gives it its highest value in the market, and yet the witnesses could not give us any reliable opinion as to the value of the property upon the basis of such use. "If the particular use to which the property is devoted has continued for a long time and has imparted to the property a peculiar value for that use, such use must be considered in determining its value." Lewis On Eminent Domain, Vol. 2, page 1275.

The law vests in the assessors certain powers by reason of their official positions. "The authority of an assessor to exercise his judgment based upon a belief of what he considers the the bona fide selling price to be, is expressly conferred by the statutes above referred to." Coal & Iron Co. vs. County Commissioners, 229 Pa., 467.

Under the difficulties already suggested, relating to the evidence of the experts, it follows that we should not entirely disregard the judgment of the assessors although they could not qualify as experts in valuing property of the character, size, and extent of the Hill School.

The real estate is carried by the corporation at $900,000, and if we deduct therefrom the included good will, and so much of the equipment or personalty as form no part of the real estate, we have a carrying value of about $640,000.

Under all the testimony and facts before us, we are convinced that this sum, even if it is not the carrying value, is nevertheless the fair market value of this property, or the sum for which it would sell at a bona fide sale after full public notice. In fixing this value we considered very carefully all the facts and circumstances surrounding the property, and the evidence of the witnesses.

Appeal of Hill School from Assessment for Taxation.

From the best light before us the weight of the evidence demands this conclusion.

Perhaps we would be justified in dismissing from our consideration all the evidence of the appellant's experts upon the ground that the witnesses were not sufficiently qualified, or because they failed to consider the property for the use which gave it its highest value in the market. In that event, the valuation of the board of revision would have to stand. We are satisfied, however, that this is too high, and would result in manifest injury to the appellant. We cannot hold the witnesses to the strictest test of qualification, because of the serious difficulty in securing experts who are fully competent to value this property, which stands in a class by itself.

The evidence shows that the ratio of assessment in this county is not beyond sixty per centum of the market value. It follows that the assessment must be reduced to sixty per centum of $640,000, or to $384,000.

And now, March 22nd, 1920, the appeal of the Hill School, a corporation, is sustained. The assessment is reduced from $500,000 to $384,000. The County Commissioners will note this reduced assessment upon their books, and also certify the reduction to the tax collectors, so that it may be properly entered upon their duplicates.

Workmen's Compensation Board

Ohman v. Barnes & Tucker Coal Co.

Husband of claimant was killed. An agreement was entered into between the employer and the claimant. Subsequently the widow remarried. The question was raised as to the amount of compensation to be paid the minor children after the remarriage of the widow." It was held that when a widow remarries that the compensation is payable at the rate provided in the Act where there is no widow.

Petition for determination of Compensation.

James L. Jack, of Indiana, Pa., Attorney for Claimant.

Michael J. Halloran, of Spangler, Pa., Attorney for Defendant. Opinion by Jarrett, Commissioner.

The following has been submitted to us for an opinion:

« PreviousContinue »