Opinion
March 28, 1947.
April 14, 1947.
Taxation — Assessment — Evidence — Expert witnesses — Opinions — Value — Assumed use of property.
In a tax assessment case, it was Held that the court below properly excluded testimony of an expert witness who based his opinion of value on a supposititious set of circumstances concerning what he conceived to be the best use of the property contrary to the long established and current use of the property.
Argued March 28, 1947.
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 102 and 103, March T., 1946, from orders of C. P., Allegheny Co., July T., 1943, No. 2977, in case of Crucible Steel Company of America v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of the County of Allegheny. Orders affirmed.
Appeal by property owner from assessments of real property. Before THOMPSON, J., without a jury.
Order and supplemental order entered reducing assessments in part. Property owner appealed.
Frank W. Ittel, with him John W. Wishart and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, for appellant.
Anne X. Alpern, City Solicitor, and Bennett Rodgers, Assistant City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, appellee.
James M. Guffey, 2nd, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Nathaniel K. Beck, County Solicitor, and Majorie Hanson Matson, Assistant County Solicitor, for Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of the County of Allegheny, appellee.
The principal question raised on the instant appeals is whether the court below, when hearing appeals from a tax assessment, erred in declining to accept the testimony of an expert witness for the appellant who admittedly based his opinion as to the value of the subject property on his own supposititious set of circumstances concerning what he conceived to be the "highest and best use" of the property which assumption was, in fact, contrary to the use that had for years been made, and is still being made, of the property for the steel mill purposes of a large and successful going concern. The action of the learned court below was so obviously correct as to render unnecessary any extended legal discussion on our part in further justification of the hearing court's action in such regard. The remaining questions raised by the appellant are equally without merit. The orders appealed from are accordingly affirmed on the opinion of Judge THOMPSON for the court below at the appellant's costs on each appeal.
Affirmed.