The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-07-29
OPINION In JERMYN'S
ASSESSMENT SUIT
LOWER COURT Is REVERSED BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
City Assessors Raised Joseph j. Jer-
myn's Assessment Between Trien-
nal Years and the Court of This
County Decided They Had No
Right To-The Supreme Court Says
the Assessors Were Right-opinion
Was Written by Justice Green and
Is An Exhaustive Document.

The opinion of the Supreme court in
the suit of Joseph j. Jermyn against
the city assessors and the board of
revision and appeals. reversing the
lever court, is as follows:
The plaintiff, being an owner of real
estate in the city OF Scranton, complains
that the assessed valuation of his prop
erty has been changed, and increased in
n year between two periods of triennial
assessment. The defendants reply that
the change was made by the board of city
assessors In obedience to a precept OF
the board of revision of taxes and ap-
peals. The plaintiff In his bill alleges that
the year 1855 was the last preceding tri-
c'nlal assessment year, and that under
thnt assessment his property was as
sessed at $1,000 and In the year 1897 the
city board of assessors made another
assessment of the same property by
which the valuation was increased to sll,-
$40. The BILL further alleging that the
next triernial assessment year was the
year 1928, AYERS upon information and be-
lief, that the inCi ease of the assessed val
uation was made ur der the authority of
the fifth section of the act OF May %, 1895,
by virtue of a preCept from the board of
revision of taxes and appeals to the city
assessors, In pursuance OF the authority
ther AYERS that the assessment made by
the city assessors in 1897 was illegal and
Nold, because the act of 1895 is unconsti-
tutional for various reasons stated in
the bill. The defendants demurrcd to the
bill on the ground that 1t sets forth 10
facts which entitle the plaintiff to the re-
lief prayed for, either at law or in equity.
QUESTION RAISED.
The question raised on these pleadngs
Is whether the fifth section of the act of
May 20, 1895, p. l.. 1l9, is unconstitu-
tional. The section is a very long one,
but as only that part of it which author
ICES the board of revision of taxes and
appeals to cause an assessment of prop
erty to be made in other than triennial
years is impeaChed as being contrary
to the constitution, that part only will
need consideration. The first clause of
the section directs the election of i've
resident citizens of cities of the third
class who shall constitute n board of re-
vision of taxes and appeals, once in ev-
cry three years. The next clause is in the
following wards, Said board, major
ity OF whom shall constitute a quorum.
may in any year other than a triennial
year. If they shall deem new assess
nent necessary, on or before the first day
of September, issue their preccpt to the
city assessors requiring them 20 make
sessment of property within the city or
such parts thereof as the said board CT
revision may deem advisable, and they
Ohall take and receive the triennial
yearly assessments as returned by the
board of city assessors, and shall have
power and authority to revise, equalize
or alter such asse ssmcnts in any and ev-
cry year by increasing or reducing the
valuations, either in individual cases or
by wards or parts of wards, and to add
to the assessment books, and to the du-
plicates thereof in the hands of the city
treasurer any subject of taxation omit
ted therefrom," etc, etc. The remainder
of the section makes provision for the
| methods of proceeding, and for appeals
| and other waters not important to the
present contention.
| The particular provision of the section
which is claimed to be contrary to the
| constitution and upon which the learned
| court below so decided, is one which au-
| thorizes assessments of property to be
| made in the years other than the trien-
| NAL years. The point upon which the r1l-
| ing was made in the court below seems
| to be that the making of intermediate
assessments was left to the discretion of
the board of revision, which it was con-
| tended was delegation of legislative
power, and necessarily tended to produ &c
! discrimination and uncertainty in the
| system in different cities, so that in one
| city there might be no interme date as
| sessment, in others there might be an
nual assessments and all depending upon
the mere discretion of the board of re-
vision. The argument was that there
| should be but one system, and that a tri-
| ennial assessment only. prevailing in al
cities alike. The contention that there
might be an abuse of the discretion thus
| conferred upon the board OF revision is
to
| to the validity of the system which con-
fers a discretion. If the system is valid
its abuse in particular cases can not af-
| feet its validity. We said this much In
Bruce VS. Pittsburg, l66 Pa. l52 where
| our Brother Dean in delivering the opin-
ion said: THAT the system prescribed
| by the act is liable to abuse i'll no way
affects it's validity"
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.
Recurring to the general subject 1t is
| certainly difficult to discover any pro-
| vision of the constitution which Is i'm.
| pigned by this enactment. None is poiat.
| cd out in the opinion of the court belo w.
| but the contention seems to be expressed
| in the following words, THE one thing
| lacking is the criterion by which the
| necessity for a new assessment is TO be
judged; this is vital and should appear by
the law itself. The legislature do not
| say that under such and such circum-
| stances, if the board of revision deem II
| necessary new assessment may be or.
| dered, but that upon the mere say so OF
| the board, without other let or hindrancE
! this may be done. This is not the ordi.
I arv creation of a municipal function the
employment or unemployment of whict
is left to the discretion of the persons in.
| vested herewith; with such as that We
have no cCI troTersy; ii is on the contrary
the Unlimited delegation TO the person
| who is to exercise the function in ques
ton, of the power to say under what cir.
| cumstances that function shall exist.
1t seems to Us that conc eding this to le &
legitimate argument against the wisdom
or expediercy of the legislation, it car
not reach the dignity of a constitutions
| objection. The act OF 1895 was an amend
ment of the act of 23d May. 1889, p. L. 2ii
| which itself cIeSted a board of assessors
| with power to exercise the same, or
very similar function, and was clotheo
| also with the power to "rev.se, alter and
equalize the said assessments Uriennial
and TO so far modify such assessment.
| during the years succeeding the year a
| the triennial assessment, as the change!
of ownership or the condition of the i'm
provements thereon shall require"
While the fifth section OF the act OF lS9
| created a beard OF revision of taxes an,
| dpp'hlS Win inc po"tlo SlSSidiIy utSls
| mated therein, 1t was only an amendmen
to the fifth section of the act OF 1889
which created a similar board called "a
board of apeals," with power to hear and
determine all appeals from assessment;
and whose decision was made fnal whil,
from the decisions of the board of re
vision created by the act of 1896 an np
peal was given to the court of common
pleas. BY the act of 1889 a triennial as
sessment was provided for with power
to the board of assessors TO alter, equal
| lie and modify the assessments dnrlnr