TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Burschell

Clark v. Burschell, 69 A. 900 (Pa. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 16, 1908
Docket
Nos. , No. 52
Judges
Brown, Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart
Citations
69 A. 900220 Pa. 4351908 Pa. LEXIS 798
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Taxation — Assessment—Appeal from assessment — Excessive valuation —Legality of assessment — Equity. The remedy of a citizen aggrieved by an excessive valuation of his property is by an appeal to the county commissioners and to the court of common pleas. He has no standing to raise such an inquiry by a suit in equity. A bill in equity attacking the legality of a tax assessment on the ground that the valuations had not been fixed by the assessors acting together as a board, is properly dismissed where the court finds as a fact that although the assessors each made a separate estimate they had subsequently met as a body, and made a final assessment.
Summary
Appeal, No. 52, Jan. T., 1908, by-plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 15, dismissing bill in equity in case of John H. Clark et al. v. Victor Burschell et al. Bill in equity for an injunction. Error assigned was the decree of the court dismissing the bill.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

If the appellants were aggrieved by reason of the excessive valuation of their properties for taxation, the law furnished an adequate remedy by appeal to the county commissioners and to the court of common pleas. They had no standing in equity to raise that inquiry. The legality of the assessment was the only question properly involved. The failure of the appellants to sustain the allegation that the valuations had not been fixed by the assessors acting together as a board was conclusive of the controversy.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellants for the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the common pleas.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1930: 11939: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Susquehanna Collieries Company's Appeal6 A.2d 831 (Pa. 1939)
  2. Kessler v. Erie City14 Pa. D. & C. 200 (1930)

Most recent

  1. Susquehanna Collieries Company's Appeal6 A.2d 831 (Pa. 1939)
  2. Kessler v. Erie City14 Pa. D. & C. 200 (1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list