Opinion
April 26, 1945.
May 4, 1945.
Appeals — Jurisdiction — Supreme Court — Superior Court — Mandamus proceedings — Amount in controversy — Revision of tax assessment of real estate — Certificate of amount in controversy.
1. Jurisdiction of appeals from judgments in mandamus proceedings, where the subject of the controversy is not the ownership or possession of real or personal property, or any right which can be expressed in money, is in the Supreme Court.
2. Under Rule 52 of the Superior Court, the certificate of the court below as to the amount in controversy is not exclusive evidence of the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
3. An appeal, from a judgment refusing a petition by an owner of real estate for a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Property Appeals and Review to recognize petitioner as an intervenor or the successor in an appeal taken by a former owner, was certified to the Supreme Court.
Before BALDRIGE, P.J., RHODES, HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 179, April T., 1945, from judgment of C.P., Allegheny Co., July T., 1944, No. 588, in case of Mary Bily, Executrix, v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County et al. Appeal certified to Supreme Court.
Mandamus proceeding. Before RICHARDSON, J.
Judgment entered for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
A.W. Henderson, with him Moorhead Knox, for appellant.
James M. Guffey, with him Edward G. Bothwell, Assistant County Solicitors, and John J. O'Connell, County Solicitor, for appellees.
Argued April 26, 1945.
This is an appeal from a judgment refusing appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellant is the owner of real estate in Pittsburgh and seeks to compel the Board of Property, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County to recognize her as an intervenor or the successor in an appeal taken by a former owner. Appellant was the mortgagee of the property at the time the appeal was taken and acquired title by foreclosure proceedings while the appeal was pending. The sole question raised here is appellant's right to a revision of the assessment either as an intervenor or as a successor in title.
The subject of the controversy presently before us is not the ownership or possession of real or personal property, or any right which can be expressed in money. Cf. Neubert v. Armstrong Water Co., 26 Pa. Super. 608. Jurisdiction of the appeal is therefore in the Supreme Court. Ribblet v. Westrick, 341 Pa. 484, 19 A.2d 394. The court below has certified that the amount in controversy is less than $2,500, but under our Rule 52, the certificate is not conclusive evidence of our jurisdiction. After appellant's standing has been established, and the board has acted upon the assessment, an appeal might lie to this Court, depending upon the amount of money then in controversy. See DuBois's Appeal, 293 Pa. 186, 142 A. 134.
The appeal is certified to the Supreme Court.