170 A. 266

222 S. Nineteenth Street Corporation Appeal.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.January 2, 1934.
January 30, 1934.

Taxes — Assessment — Appeal to common pleas court — Varying opinions of experts as to values — Averaging values — Consideration of evidence.

On an appeal to the court of common pleas from an assessment for taxes, it is not necessary for the trial judge, where there are widely varying opinions of experts as to the value of the property, to average the values testified to, but he must, upon a consideration of the testimony of the experts called for both sides, determine the market value of the property.

Argued January 2, 1934.

Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

Appeal, No. 334, Jan. T., 1933, by 222 S. Nineteenth Street Corporation, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1932, No. 2161, in appeal of 222 S. Nineteenth Street Corporation from Board of Revision of Taxes. Decree affirmed.

Appeal from assessment of taxes. Before DAVIS, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Assessment reduced to $968,000.00 from $1,050,000.00. 222 S. Nineteenth Street Corporation appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

Milton A. Kamsler, with him Joseph First, of Sundheim, Folz Sundheim, for appellant.

Theodore F. Jenkins, Solicitor for School District, Mayne R. Longstreth, Assistant City Solicitor, and David J. Smyth, City Solicitor, for appellee, submitted their argument on paper books.

PER CURIAM, January 30, 1934:

A twenty-seven story apartment house, located at 222 So. 19 th Street, Philadelphia, was assessed for taxation

Page 133

at $1,050,000 for the year 1932. The court below, upon an appeal from the board of revision reduced the assessment to $968,000. The property owner appeals.

Experts for the parties disagreed widely as to the value of the land. The court considered all of this testimony and we find nothing in the record to disturb the conclusions therefrom. See Appeal of Westbury Apartments, Inc., 314 Pa. 130.

We add that it is not necessary for a judge, where there are widely varying opinions of experts as to the value of property, to average the values testified to; but he must, upon a consideration of the testimony of the experts called for both sides, determine the market value of the property.

Decree affirmed at the cost of appellant.