Liberty Coal Co v. Bassett

• Decision Date: 03 December 1929
• Docket Number: (Nos. 6637, 6637-A.)
• Parties: LIBERTY COAL CO. et al. v. BASSETT et al.(two cases).
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

150 S.E. 745

LIBERTY COAL CO. et al.
v.
BASSETT et al.(two cases).

(Nos. 6637, 6637-A.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Dec. 3, 1929.

[150 S.E. 745](Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County.,

Proceeding by the Liberty Coal Company and others against C. E. Bassett, chairman, and others, constituting the Board of Equalization and Review, and the State of West Virginia, to review valuation of their property by such board. From an order of the cir cuit court, the applicants and the State appeal. Appeal dismissed as to Bertha and Adaline Coal Companies, and affirmed as to the others.

Everett F. Moore, of Moundsville, Conaway, & Conaway, of Fairmont, and Allan D. Williams, of Uniontown, Pa., for Liberty Coal Company and others.

Lloyd Arnold, Pros. Atty., of Moundsville, for the State and Marshall County.

HATCHER, J. This is a joint proceeding by twelve landowners of Marshall county, who appealed to the circuit court from the valuation of their property by the board of equalization and review. The proceeding is now mere upon the appeal of the state as well as the applicants from the order of the circuit court, by virtue of Acts of 1929, c. 55, amending Code, c. 29, § 129, which provides: "The state or any taxpayer shall have an appeal as a matter of right to the supreme court of appeals where the value of the property Is fifty thousand dollars or more." The value of the property of one of the appellants, Bertha Coal & Coke Company, as fixed by the circuit court is $12,125. The value of the property of another, Adaline Coal Company, as so ascertained, is $25,300. As neither of these values is as much as $50,000, the appeal is dismissed as to these two companies.

The applicants are the owners of undeveloped coal land. It was proved at the hearing before the board of equalization and review that the coal in question is not of as high grade as much of the coal now produced in West Virginia and cannot be profitably mined at the present time. The witnesses divided the property into two groups. The land proximate to river or railroad was termed "front land"; that remote from transportation facilities, "back land." In the opinion of the witnesses, the actual value of the "front land" was $15 and of the "back land" $10 an acre. The circuit court determined the value of the "front land" to be $25 and the "back land" to be $15 an acre. The landowners contend that there is no evidence justifying the values found by the lower court

In this proceeding it Is not of consequence that another court could fairly arrive at a different conclusion from the one herein, or that the weight of evidence is against the finding. It is our duty to uphold the lower tribunal...