Cumberland Coal Co v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments In Greene County, Pa Phillips v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments In Greene County, Pa Piedmont Coal Co v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments In Greene County, Pa Greene County Coal Co v. Board of Revision of Tax Assessments In Greene County, Pa 16 19, 1931
| Decision Date | 23 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 7-13,s. 7-13 |
| Citation | 284 U.S. 23,52 S.Ct. 48,76 L.Ed. 146 |
| Parties | CUMBERLAND COAL CO. v. BOARD OF REVISION OF TAX ASSESSMENTS IN GREENE COUNTY, PA. (four cases). PHILLIPS v. BOARD OF REVISION OF TAX ASSESSMENTS IN GREENE COUNTY, PA. PIEDMONT COAL CO. v. BOARD OF REVISION OF TAX ASSESSMENTS IN GREENE COUNTY, PA. GREENE COUNTY COAL CO. v. BOARD OF REVISION OF TAX ASSESSMENTS IN GREENE COUNTY, PA. Argued Oct. 16-19, 1931 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Arthur B. Van Buskirk, William A. Seifert, and Samuel McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioners.
Messrs. Challen W. Waychoff and Ambrose Bradley, both of Waynesburg, Pa., for respondent.
These seven cases were heard together in the state court and decided in a single opinion, as they were deemed to present but one question. They relate to assessments for taxation of the coal lands of the petitioners, for the year 1928, in several townships of Greene county, Pa. Taking as typical the assessment of coal lands in the township of Cumberland, it appears that petitioners, on appeal to the court of common pleas of Greene county, assailed the plan of assessment adopted by the commissioners of the county sitting as a board of appeal for the revision and equalization of assessments. Petitioners alleged that the valuation placed upon their coal was unjust and discriminatory, as the commissioners had 'assessed all coal in the same township (except what is termed 'active coal') at the same valuation, regardless of the remoteness or accessibility of the said coal to market cost of operation, or means of transportation and regardless of the difference in value and without due regard to the valuation and assessment of other coal and other classes of real estate in the County of Greene.' The court of common pleas, on findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissed the appeals, and the decrees were affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state. Greene County Coal Tax Appeals, 302 Pa. 179, 152 A. 755. The specific contention that the plan of assessment violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was presented by petition for reargument and was considered and was explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court. As the state court entertained and decided the federal question, this court has jurisdiction. Jud. Code, § 237(b), U. S. C., tit. 28 s 344 (28 USCA § 344(b); Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79, 85, 24 S. Ct. 390, 48 L. Ed. 623; Sullivan v. Texas, 207 U. S. 416, 422, 28 S. Ct. 215, 52 L. Ed. 274; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Kentucky, 218 U. S. 551, 556, 31 S. Ct. 95, 54 L. Ed. 1147; Fleming v. Fleming, 264 U. S. 29, 31, 44 S. Ct. 246, 68 L. Ed. 547.
There is no question that the assessments under review were made pursuant to a deliberately adopted system. The case is not one of mere errors in judgment in following a proper method (Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield, 247 U. S. 350, 352, 353, 38 S. Ct. 495, 62 L. Ed. 1154; Southern R. Co. v. Watts, 260 U. S. 519, 526, 43 S. Ct. 192, 67 L. Ed. 375), but one where the challenged discrimination resulted from a plan of assessment which was none the less systematic and intentional because of belief in its validity (Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 35, 37, 28 S. Ct. 7, 52 L. Ed. 78, 12 Ann. Cas. 757; Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, 445, 43 S. Ct. 190, 67 L. Ed. 340, 28 A. L. R. 979; Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Kendall, 266 U. S. 94, 98, 99, 45 S. Ct. 55, 69 L. Ed. 183).
From the facts as found by the court of common pleas, it appears that the petitioners' property in question is virgin coal (as distinguished from 'active coal,' that is, coal which 'is opened and mined'1) and is part of the Pittsburgh or river vein. That is a continuous vein of bituminous coal underlying the whole of Greene county and is 'practically of the same character, quality and thickness.' Greene county is bounded on the east by the Monongahela river, and the Pittsburgh or river vein extends westerly for several miles through a number of townships. The coal immediately along the river front, by reason of proximity to rail and river transportation, is more valuable than the 'back coal,' and the value of the coal decreases with the distance from the river. Within a distance of about three miles westerly from the river mining operations are being conducted. In making the triennial assessments for the taxation of property ad valorem, the commissioners adopted as a uniform basis for all property 50 per cent. of the amount taken as actual value. The commissioners then assigned different values for the coal in the different townships of the county, but assessed the coal within the same township at the same value an acre notwithstanding differences in actual or market value due to distances from transportation facilities and to other factors.
Cumberland township adjoins the Monongahela river and extends westerly about nine miles. All the coal in the Pittsburgh or river vein within the limits of this township, except what was described as 'active coal,'2 was assessed by the commissioners (on the fifty per cent. basis) at $260 an acre, despite the fact that the coal along the river, and for a considerable area (much more than 250 acres3) around the operating plants, was worth $1,000 an acre.
The petitioner, Cumberland Coal Company, owns 64,574 acres of the Pittsburgh or river vein of coal within Greene county, of which 9,237 acres lie in Cumberland township and consists (with the exception of two small, detached tracts not here involved) of a block of coal extending from a point distant two and one-fourth miles westerly from the Monongahela river to the western boundary of the township. With respect to the difference in actual value of that petitioner's coal, distant from the river, as compared with coal of the same sort belonging to other owners and more favorably located, the court of common pleas expressly found as follows:
'The Pittsburgh or River vein of coal of appellant' (petitioner here) 'lying a distance of three miles west of the Monongahela River and extending back a distance of three miles, or six miles from the river, does not possess a value of more than one-half of the value of the same vein of coal fronting on the Monongahela River, belonging to others than appellant, and extending back a distance of three miles westwardly.'
In attempted justification of the discrimination, the court of common pleas adverted to the fact that other owners of coal in this vein were also assessed for 'active coal' and for buildings, equipment and real estate constituting 'operating properties.' But such assessments appear to have been made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...full value constitutes an improper discrimination in violation of equal protection principles. (E. g., Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board (1931) 284 U.S. 23, 28, 52 S.Ct. 48, 76 L.Ed. 146; Sioux City Bridge v. Dakota County (1923) 260 U.S. 441, 445, 43 S.Ct. 190, 67 L.Ed. 340; see Hillsborough v.......
-
Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933
...in the enforcement of the act. For this proposition appellants rely upon decisions such as Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision, 284 U.S. 23, 52 S.Ct. 48, 76 L.Ed. 146, and Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 284 U.S. 239, 52 S.Ct. 133, 76 L.Ed. 265, holding a failure to assess all pr......
-
Charleston Federal Savings Loan Ass v. Alderson
...43 S.Ct. 192, 195, 67 L.Ed. 375; Baker v. Druesedow, 263 U.S. 137, 142, 44 S.Ct. 40, 42, 68 L.Ed. 212; Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board, 284 U.S. 23, 25, 52 S.Ct. 48, 49, 76 L.Ed. 146; Rowley v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 293 U.S. 102, 111, 55 S.Ct. 55, 59, 79 L.Ed. 222; Great Northern Ry.......
-
Wheeling Steel Corporation v. Glander National Distillers Products Corporation v. Glander
...32, 48 S.Ct. 423, 72 L.Ed. 770; Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389, 48 S.Ct. 553, 72 L.Ed. 927; Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board, 284 U.S. 23, 52 S.Ct. 48, 76 L.Ed. 146; Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517, 53 S.Ct. 481, 77 L.Ed. 929, 85 A.L.R. 699; Concordia Ins. Co. v. Illinois, 2......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...Lewis, 294 U.S. 550, 555-60 (1935) (sales tax on retailers graduated according to gross sales); Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision, 284 U.S. 23, 28-30 (1931) (discriminatory assessments); Quaker City Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389, 400-02 (1928) (gross receipts tax that disting......