Case Name: Crucible Steel Company of America, Appellant, v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1947-04-14
Citations: 356 Pa. 373
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 102 and 103
Parties: Crucible Steel Company of America, Appellant, v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review.
Judges: Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearne and Jones, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 356
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
Crucible Steel Company of America, Appellant, v. Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review.
Argued March 28, 1947.
Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearne and Jones, JJ.
Frank W. Ittel, with him John W. Wishart and Reed, Smith, Shaw d MeOlay, for appellant.
Anne X. Alpern, City Solicitor, and Bennett Rodgers, Assistant City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, appellee.
James M. G-ujfey, 2nd, Assistant County Solicitor, with him Nathaniel K. Bech, County Solicitor, and Majorie Sanson Matson, Assistant County Solicitor, for Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of the County of Allegheny, appellee.
April 14, 1947:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
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.