*1 part or de- the consideration JONES, J., took no C. case. cision of this ROBERTS, in the re- JJ., concur
MANDERINO sult.
Supreme Argued Sept. 28, 1973.
Decided Nov. *3 Lee, Pitts- Lee, Dougherty, Donald Larrimer & J. burgh, appellant for at No. 141. No. Morcroft, Pittsburgh, appellant at for
Gilbert E. Pittsburgh, Scott, Boyle, Meyer, Unkovic & William G. appellant at No. 159. for Rutter, Solicitor, County Thomas M. Barry,
Francis A. Murphy, Pittsburgh, Solicitor, John F. County Jr., Asst. Pittsburgh, County Solicitors, Caroselli, R. Asst. William appellee. for O’BRIEN, EAGEN, ROB- JONES, and J.,
Before C. MANDERINO, JJ. POMEROY, ERTS, and NIX OPINION POMEROY, Justice. Borough and of Greentree February 13, 1970, the
On borough who residents of number individual property County real paid Allegheny owned land and Allegheny equity against complaint filed a taxes Appeals Re- and County Assessment, Property Board of “Board”) (herein the three Commissioners and view constitutionality of challenging Allegheny County, County Assessment Class certain Second sections amended, P.S. Law, as 21, 1939, P.L. Act of June statute, 72 P.S. seq. § of that 5452.1 et Section § Assessment, Property provides 5452.7, that the Board may— Appeals Review and equal nearly districts, as county into three
“divide provide taxation, subjects possible as year, but made each shall be that triennial assessments any one during only districts three one of such *4 triennial system, a inaugurate year. In order to during district first for the be made assessment in which following [year] immediately one year the county as for the made triennial was assessment the may made for be triennial assessment and a whole, in following one year during the second district second county the was made assessment which a triennial aas whole.” property
In in the 1969 the Board undertook assess all 1970-1972, years Southern Triennial District for the tax utilizing common ratio of assessed as the uniform 50% Property value to fair market other two value.1 the un- triennial districts was not for reassessment scheduled (for triennium) (for the til 1971-1973 and 1971 their triennium) respectively. 1972-1974 Plaintiffs complaint two-pronged reas- attack on the 1969 made a first They sessment claimed Southern District. County that section Assessment 7 of Second Class Law, 5452.7, division which 72 P.S. authorizes § Allegheny County districts, uncon- into itself triennial uniform Secondly, they stitutional. claimed that initially applied to the being common ratio of was 50% remaining triennial only, Southern District while the two un- lower, permitted districts were remain some specified plaintiffs challenge, ratio. either Under subjected they being claimed were violation Constitution, Art. uniformity Pennsylvania clause of the VIII, 1, P.S.,2 Equal Protection Clause and of the § Fifteen additional Constitution of the United States. boroughs Tri- townships in the and located Southern ennial District intervened. filed County
The defendant Board
Commissioners
and
they
responsive
assert-
pleading
which
on the merits
County
Assessment
ed
section 7 of
Second Class
com-
Law
not
uniform
was
unconstitutional and
applied
the Southern
mon ratio of
had
been
50%
relationship
common
1. For a review of the
between the uniform
Depart-
assessment,
May
property
ratio and the
see
law
real
Property
Allegheny County
As-
Company
ment Stores
sessment,
Board of
(1971);
Review,
Appeals
and
Case, 426 Pa.
Massachusetts Mutual
Ins.
Tax Assessment
Co.
Life
(and
following in volume
“[w]hile equity plaintiff has not an action where will entertain statutory law, adequate an acknowl- at we also doctrine, ex- edge presence exception of an subject isting taxing is made the where a statute challenge.” constitutional original).5 Two (emphasis
Id. at in 244 at A.2d .3 decision, years later, however, in the Rochester had who through (speaking Cohen, Justice Mr. jurisdic- Lynch) equitable law of dissented in stated the fol- raising questions as tion over cases constitutional lows: an jurisdiction on required to confer
[W]hat
con-
question of
is the
substantial
existence
court
ab-
allegation) and the
stitutionality (and not a mere
remedy.”
adequate
sence
anof
supplied).
(emphasis
A.2d
79
Pa. at
Rochester —“the
in
qualification
important
The
italicized
dissent-
citing
earlier
Lynch,
his
in
dissented
Cohen
5. Mr. Justice
Theatres,
Washington,
Pa.
v.
Inc.
ing opinion
Studio
Although prior Court on two occasions Rochester, sought Lynch stant case has with to reconcile Downingtown Pa. District, see Crosson v. Area School Campbell Coates- 473-474, (1970); A.2d 377 District, 496, 499-500, ville Area School (1970), we than were we would be less candid opin- acknowledge that the two tension exists between attempt appeals further ions. Our task in these consequent resolution confusion of that tension and the developed. that has expressed Lynch indicated, is, view as above *7 presence
that the question of equi- a constitutional in an ty challenging action taxing regulatory a or other statute always grounds jurisdiction adjudicate, in the court to regardless presence of legislatively-prescribed of a route appeal, of adequate however be.6 language
There supports is in this our decisions which In 592, view. Reading, Y.M.C.A. v. Pa. 402 167 (1961), 469 for example, (a dissenter Mr. Justice Cohen in Lynch) carefully history juris- equity reviewed the of diction legislature provided ap- where has a peal route: Jacobs 262, 112 A.2d v. Fetzer Pa. 356
“[I]n
[381
(1955)],
recognized
the court
the first-stated
rule
statutory remedy
‘a
pursued,
if
ex
[that
must be
one
ists,
preference
any
proceeding’] by quot
other
ing
Dougherty
from
Philadelphia,
case
314 Pa.
[v.
298,
(1934)]
A.
equity
583
has
to the effect that
jurisdiction
ap-
power
where a total want
to tax
Lynch
concept
recently
The
is most
a footnote in the
stated in
Roberts, expressing
of Mr.
of three
Justice
the views
Court,
City
Parking Corp.
members of the
in Alco
Pitts
burgh,
369,
245,
rev’d.,
2,
(1973),
453 Pa.
252 n.
417 U.S.
A.2d 851
94 S.Ct.
pears. Hence, inappropriate it does not to re- seem history dichotomy view the equity of this if to discover jurisdiction properly should attach in a case like'the present allegations one where no un- that the statute is being applied constitutional on its or is unconsti- face ” tutionally are made . . at A. . Pa. (emphasis supplied). 2d at 471 adjudi The equity powerless Court in Y.M.C.A. held cate challenge constitutionality “absent a to the of a stat ute or Ibid., official action thereunder.” Washing A.2d at Theatres, 472. See also Studio Inc. v. ton, 73, 79, (“The 209 A.2d teaching controversy that, of our case where the law challenge validity involves a to the constitutional taxing ordinance, controversy statute or falls general within equity does class of cases wherein Philadelphia competency have act”); Commonwealth, Insurance Co. v. Life (1963) (“ 190 A.2d for ar ‘It is too well settled gument enjoin pow taxation will for want ”). er to tax’ contrary position, pre generally has which Court, well-supported
vailed case is also in the view, expressed Rochester, law. We are as question mere fact as that a constitutional raised validity not, to the more, statute does without vest *8 jurisdiction equity adjudicate. addi in a court of The required equitable tional is element to confer or, statutorily-prescribed remedy either the absence of a inadequacy remedy exists, showing if such a then of its a in the circumstances. fact recognition of the begin with must
We ju equitable precisely, the (or equity more that courts of subject to pleas) are of common courts risdiction of our powers of legal are the statutory limitations, indeed as
277 At early our lower date, courts.7 an Assem- General bly statutorily-prescribed made it clear that remedies “strictly pursued.” 21, were to be In the Act of March 1806, 13, 156,8 558, 326, P.L. 4 Sm.L. the Gen- P.S. § § Assembly provided: eral provided, duty all
“In
cases where
or
en-
any
joined,
anything
by
be
act or
or
directed to
done
assembly
commonwealth,
directions
acts of
of
strictly pursued,
penal-
acts shall
and no
said
he
of
ty
inflicted,
anything
agreeably to the
shall
or
done
be
cases,
provisions
law, in
further
of the common
such
necessary
carrying
act or
than shall
for
acts
be
’’ (emphasis supplied).
effect.
al-
argument
An
to the effect that a court of
must
taxing
ways
entertain
constitutional attack on
statute
regard
(or
enactment)
for
some other similar
without
is,
adequacy
legislatively-prescribed remedy
es-
of the
sentially,
argument
should be
an
statute
above
ignored;
legislature
say,
is without
power
questions
nature
to channel
of a constitutional
specified
appeal.
into a
subscribe
route of
We cannot
others,
all
questions,
such a result.
like
Constitutional
legislature in
by
legitimately
can and are
channeled
passage through
judicial process. See,
g., El-
their
e.
850,
5,
99 L.Ed.
Dixon,
lis v.
462 n.
S.Ct.
458,
U.S.
Illinois,
571,
S.Ct.
(1955); Parker
U.S.
Ed-
708,
; Central Union Tel. Co. v.
past, question as the one when faced such with litigants with today, require to conform us has been to following legislature by the statutori- of the desires have, ly-prescribed appeal. however, route of We un- recognized not to be time that the rule is same above exception will thinkingly applied, but rather remedy pointless or inade- statutory made where the is City quate. Rochester, supra; Theatres, Studio Inc. v. Pittsburgh, supra, 418 Pa. at A.2d at 805-806 (“Whether having equity, court of act, presence adequate should act of the of an view remedy at law or for another other valid reason is some altogether”); Excavating matter Luzerne Bliss Co. v. County, (1965) 446, 451, 418 Pa. 211 A.2d (“The statutory procedure only if need not be followed objec- inadequate resolving plaintiffs’ is to the task of pursuit irreparable harm”); tions or its will cause them Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Ins. National Co. v. Life Life Co., 168, 173, Ins. 417 Pa. remedy
(“Equity in- will afford if the relief adequate pursuit harm”) irreparable ; or its would work Philadelphia Commonwealth, Ins. Co. Life 580, 581, (1963) (“the must be 190 A.2d adequate adequate it not “Where complete”; challenge is of tax made to the mechanics calcula- any power levy legislature tions but to the tax of the Supreme 9. All of the cited in text United States Court cases proposition above a federal stand for the the failure to raise pre- question provided by state in the manner law question Supreme cludes of the United States review in the Court. *10 Reading, . . Y.M.C.A. v. (“The efficacy of the rule that
statutory remedy pursued, exists, must be if one is hard- approach been, effect, ly questionable”). in Our has by one, flexible as that Prof. Jaffe: such advocated process nothing the con- has to “Where administrative spe- to the decision of the and there no tribute issue are postponing decision, its cial reasons for immediate exhaus- required.” Jaffe, tion should not be L. Judicial Control (1965).10 Action 440 Administrative said, From that what has been it clear we have dispensed litigant requirement with the that a follow statutorily-prescribed merely because a consti- remedies present question is in tutional the case. statutorily-pre-
It to determine whether the remains remedy (a remedy appellants in which case, scribed beyond appeals the have lost failure to file with recall their appellee period required within the after Board reassessments) adequate as is such an Jaffe, writing law of United Prof. in case the found the Supreme question of whether States Court inconclusive on requirement presence of a constitutional alters issue Subsequently Su- administrative remedies be first exhausted. Clark, preme E. B. America decided W. DuBois Clubs of DuBois 389 U.S. The 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 546 proceeding attempted Clubs had before the tion in a to circumvent an administrative by bringing an ac- Activities Board Subversive Control relief, alleging that injunctive court federal district for sought proceed Attorney statute under which General per held was curiam unconstitutional. The Court in a notwithstanding (7-2) powerless proceed, court district alleged unconstitutionality facial of the statute: way appel- Congress provided a “It is evident that has deny- appellants, lants to their constitutional claims. But raise Act, ing gate to liti- they coverage of wish are within the be these in the The effect would claims District Court. important de- that cided issues would and difficult constitutional ap- it context and before was clear devoid of factual pellants by the . . District were covered Act. [T]he ques- Court should not be forced to decide these tions 311-312, S.Ct. in a 389 U.S. at vacuum.” supplied). (emphasis L.Ed.2d at 549 preclude taking their com- over from plaint.
Appellees argue forcefully opinion in Roches- that our Roches- question dispositive as In the ter of this well. Assessment, according the com- ter case the Board of undertaken, plaint there, had the absence authority the Second as section 7 of that found in property County Law,11 to reassess Class Assessment County’s thirty-eight political nine of subdivisions. brought action Pittsburgh an Coal Rochester & Co. taxing here, appellants that the equity, alleging, did as protection procedures County deprived equal it *11 that uniformity taxation. We and denied it observe grave constitu- the the real tax area most of estate “[i]n most of questions already decided, and tional been have underly- actions, including one, question not the the ing application.” at Pa. statute but rather its may the situation 266 A.2d at that have been 79. While Rochester,12 not the situation we are it convinced is here.
Appellants the con- have attack on made here a frontal County As- stitutionality of section of the Class Second Law, 5452.7, alleging that the statute sessment 72 P.S. § three County into Allegheny the authorizes division (it plainly does), a divi- triennial districts that and Pennsylvania the sion violates S. Constitutions. U. Law, here, County 11. is Second Assessment at issue Class only county the division of assessment which authorizes the law county a into triennial assessment districts. note, retrospect, County We Assessment General the Law, 22, 1933, § May seq., § 5020-1 Act P.S. P.L. et seq., purported inter- provision et a to authorize contained which prescribe.” triennial “at such as the board assessments time procedure § constitutionality 72 P.S. of the uti- 5020-431. The already County (inter-triennial assessment) lized in Indiana had Jermyn City long been Scran- since affirmed this Court. ton, Therefore, (1898). was in- Rochester 186 Pa. A. 972 challenges in raising the deed case one of those constitutional Rochester, “already real . decided.” estate tax field . . at 79. opinions past generally Our in the shown have an awareness that the more direct the on the attack stat ute, likely juris equitable the more it is exercise of damage diction will role of the administrative agency charged require, act, with nor enforcement of the adjudication, for informed fabric which factual might develop at agency reason, level. The we be lieve, constitutionality is that the determination of the enabling legislation is not function of administra agencies Philadelphia Ins. tive thus enabled. See Life Co. v. Commonwealth, A.2d 111 clearly question The more appears it goes directly validity raised to the of the the less statute agency light need exists for on involved throw through fact-finding issue specialized exercise its application expertise. function or of its administrative Further, compliance an less there need with procedures agency’s prerequisite as a to informed consti greater making, tutional correspondingly decision then requiring litigants by con embarrassment caused to formity statutorily-prescribed remedy. with the con We spe clude that the case at is such case. Here bar proceedings cialized appellee would before the Board little, any, utility determining if constitution ality County of section 7 of Assessment the Second Class *12 filing might Law. the Whatever benefit from be derived appeals appellants of the individual Board these with outweighed by inconvenience, delay would be far the expense hold, therefore, in the cir involved. We that statutory case, cumstances of this the was finding adequate. holding, coupled our basic This with presence of question the of a constitution substantial of going directly validity ality the of assessment to the 13 applicable requires Allegheny County scheme that to aware, provides 13. far So are as we our case no direct an- law question constitutionality swer the of of triennial assessment county. appellees districts within us to no case a have cited Scranton, directly point Jermyn City more on than v. 186 Pa. of 282
we proceedings.14 reverse and remand further adjudicate
On remand the court should also appellants’ applied that claim a uniform the Board new assessment ratio of to their triennial district alone. 50% may posed While this have issue is in it terms prop any event, constitutional overtones. In once erly avoiding has may, it interest of jurisdiction, multiplicity actions, dispose of all suit. of issues America, Mills, Wortex Inc. v. Textile Workers Union of Bren 3, 11-14, (1954); 380 Hurst v. Pa. 109 815 (No. (1913). nen 1 J. 1), 216, 223, Pa. 86 A. See 239 778 1941). Ed., (5th Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, 231 § Pennsylvania See also Commerce State Chamber of Torquato, (1956); 306, 328-330, Pa. A.2d 755 125 Harper’s (1885).15 Appeal, 16, A. and of
The orders
Commonwealth
re-
pleas
court
case
of common
and the
reversed,
are
case is
(1898) (see
supra).
40 A.
that
While
note
favor,
persuasive
hardly controls
appellees’
some
authority in
it
appellants’
question presented,
enough against
the
contention to
it
nor does
cut
issue
justify
saying
constitutional
our
not substantial.
appears
be
Assembly
We also
that the
note
General
In
question
here is substantial.
the constitutional
following sentence:
§
1965 it
72 P.S.
to add
amended
5452.7
plan]
“.
districts
.
.
triennial
such assessments [under
requirements of
compliance
shall
be deemed
be in
with
subjects.” Act
uniformity of
taxation on the same class
9, 1965,
668, §
Nov.
1.
P.L.
statuto-
signal
14.
today’s
We do not intend that
decision will
allegation,
simply by
rily-prescribed
in
essary imprecision obtaining
an
remedies
in
be aborted
nec-
complaint
equity,
issue. Given
of a
field, prudence
dictate
would
in this
statutory remedy
Such
following
one exists.
where
equity may
simply
court
is not
course
foreclosed
because
Theatres, Inc.
subject-matter jurisdiction.
also have
v.
See Studio
Washington,
79 n.
283 manded for proceedings. further Costs abide event.
O’BRIEN, J., joins opinion. in this MANDERINO, J., concurs the result.
ROBERTS, J., concurring opinion filed a in which O’BRIEN, joins. J.,
JONES, J.,C. NIX, JJ., EAGAN and dissent. ROBERTS, (concurring). Justice I concur in the Court’s conclusion that the court pleas sitting common equity has to decide appellants’ challenge. constitutional Our decision Lynch Regardless mandates this result. of the availabil ity specific of a statutory remedy, a court has jurisdiction to decide challenge a broad validity Lynch taxing of a v. statute or ordinance. Owen J. District, Roberts School 1 Pa. 244 A.2d 461, (1968); Theaters, City Studio Washington, Inc. v. Pa. Roch A.2d also See Pittsburgh ester & Coal Co. v. Assessment, Board 506, 511, Pa. (1970) (dissenting 266 A.2d of Roberts, J., joined by Downing J.); C. Crosson Bell, town Area District, School (dissenting opinion Roberts, join J., J.).
ed Belize. Lynch
In said: agree general eq- “While we proposition with uity plaintiff will not entertain an action where has an adequate statutory remedy law, acknowledge we also presence doctrine, existing exception of an to taxing subject where a consti- of a statute is made the challenge. tutional
“ teaching that, ‘The of our where case law controversy challenge involves a to the constitutional
validity
taxing
ordinance,
of a
statute or
con
troversy
general
falls
the
of
within
class
cases wherein
equity
jurisdiction
competency
does have
and
to act.
Theaters,
City
Inc.
Studio
v.
[Citations omitted.]’
of
Washington,
(1965).
418 Pa.
209 A.2d
Commonwealth,
Philadelphia
also,
See
Ins. Co. v.
Life
Young Men’s
(1963);
410 Pa.
The the balancing principles by adopting from test these a new jurisdiction of which, asserted, it the is will determine challenges equity tax statutes. to resolve constitutional Lynch my view, suggested neither In the is test, which Pittsburgh only the Co., confuses nor Rochester & Coal issue. analy- begins announcing judgment its by correctly of the observing
sis that the “determination constitutionality legislation not a function enabling It then agencies thus enabled.” the administrative adjudication be- “utility” balances the constitutional proce- specialized under its fore tax review board expense in- delay against “inconvenience, and dures test, of this procedures. in these On basis volved” case, the least in this majority that, concludes by outweighed appeals decision is “utility” of a tax board court negative concludes that factors and despite challenge adjudicate has statutory appeal procedure. unnecessary analysis totally judgment, my
In exactly always conclusion the same it lead to because will were Lynch. appeals boards Tax reached They created real tax review estate are assessments. totally purpose adjudicate unsuited both skill and per procedures issues. The board haps deciding adequate im individual claims assessment,* proper they plainly inadequate but are when faced with on a broad-based attack the constitu tionality taxing statute, here, as or the assessment procedure. Necessarily, multiple proceedings before involving separate challenges the board and numerous always delay “inconvenience, will expense” involve *15 procedures. “utility” which far It exceeds of board superimposed upon should be noted these disadvan tages multiplicitous litigation is added burden and of long periods uncertainty taxpayers of financial and government. local Pittsburgh Coal
Under the variation of Rochester &
Lynch,
announcing
Co.,
suggested
as
under
judgment
always
jurisdic-
a court of
will
have
tion
challenge
to hear a
constitutional
tax statute.
majority
inject
presently
All the
does is
extraneous
unhelpful factors into the
cre-
courts’ determinations and
ate
by suggesting
confusion
that there
now
nebu-
some
challenges
lous class
will somehow
equity.
be denied
consideration
course,
experimentation
balancing
Of
with the new
procedure
totally unnecessary
for the result here. Un-
holding
Lynch
der the
of either
Pitts-
or Rochester &
burgh
Co.,
Allegheny County
Coal
Common
equitable
Pleas has
to determine the consti-
* See,
Assessment,
192,
Property
e. Morris v. Board
g.,
417 Pa.
Assessment,
Property
(1965);
209
Deitch v. Board of
A.2d 407
Center,
213,
(1965); McKnight Shopping
417
Inc.
Pa.
209
397
A.2d
Assessment,
Property
v. Board
Pa.
209 A.2d
(1965); Pittsburgh
Country Shopping
Miracle Mile Town &
Cen
ter,
Assessment,
Property
v.
Inc.
Board
Pa.
A.2d
Co.,
Appeal,
(1965);
Rieck Ice Cream
Loma,
Assessment,
Property
(1965);
Casa
Inc. v. Board of
Co. v.
(1965);
417 Pa.
Heinz
Board of
tutionality of the statute.
them, or to create the vari-
to choose
sional need
between
Pittsburgh
suggested
Coal Co.
ation
Rochester &
majority.
concurring
joins
opinion.
O’BRIEN,
in this
J.,