Skip to main content
· 1/5/1914

Rees v. City of Erie

Citations

  • 243 Pa. 189
  • 90 A. 58
  • 1914 Pa. LEXIS 596

Syllabus

<p>. Taxation — Assessment—City of the third class — Board of revision of taxes — City assessors — Ratio of value — Equalizing of assessments — Legal remedy — Equity.</p> <p>1. Under the provisions of Section 5, of Article 15, of the Act Of May 23, 1889, P. L. 277, as amended by Section 3, of the Act of May 23, 1895, P. L. 118, the board of revision of taxes and appeals of a city of the third class has authority to revise and equalize the valuations returned by the board of city assessors for the- purposes-of correction and- equalization, and further to alter the same, when in their opinion the valuations returned do not represent the fair market value at public sale after notice, and this without an appeal on the part of taxables from, the action of the board of city assessors.</p> <p>2. Where the entire assessment throughout the city has been altered by the board of revision of taxes and appeals, and a new standard- of valuation adopted, the rule that the board of revision must adopt the ratio of valuation established by the board of city assessors does not apply, particularly where it does not appear that the standard of valuation adopted is not uniform throughout the district.</p> <p>3. In such a case if the board shall fail in any particular instance to secure uniformity, the remedy is by appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.</p> <p>4. In such a case an assessment made by the board of revision of taxes and appeals arrived at by increasing the valuation certified by the board of city assessors for the purpose of equalizing or altering the same will not be set aside as a whole because the same ratio of value was not applied to land as to buildings and improvements.</p> <p>5. A bill in equity to enjoin the councils and mayor of a city of the third class from levying or assessing city taxes, based on an assessment made and certified by the board of revision of taxes and appeals, was dismissed where all that appeared was that the board of revision, after due notice a

Judges: Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.