# North Side Laundry Co. v. Board of Property Assessment

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 20, 1950 · 168 Pa. Super. 64

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6281717

## Case

- **Full name:** North Side Laundry Co. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 20, 1950
- **Citations:** 168 Pa. Super. 64; 76 A.2d 656; 1950 Pa. Super. LEXIS 567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Arnold, Dithrich, Gunther, Hirt, Reno, Rhodes, Ross
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6281717

## Opinion text

Per Curiam,
This is an appeal from an order of the lower court sustaining a tax assessment of appellant’s real estate for the triennial period from 1948 to 1950, which included as a subject of taxation its “machinery and equipment”.
Such an assessment for the period from 1945 to 1947, was declared valid in a prior appeal taken by this appellant: North Side Laundry Co. et al. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review, (reported as United Laundries, Inc. et al. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review), 359 Pa. 195 , 58 A. 2d 833 ; and its petition to the Supreme Court for reargument, alleging for the first time that the assessment was discriminatory and a violation of ap *66 pellant’s rights guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania, was denied.
Appellant has raised the same questions here as it did in the prior appeal and petition for reargument, which, we hold, have been determined adversely to his contentions by the North Side Laundry case, supra; and the order of the lower court must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6281717. Public record. Not legal advice.