delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе City of Richmond assessed the appellant’s real estate for 1955 at the sum of $105,000, being $5,000 for the land and $100,000 for the improvements. The appellant filed in the court below its application for a reduction of the assessment, alleging that the fair market vаlue of the property was not more than $85,000 and asking for a refund of the tax paid by it in excess of the amount due on a proper assessment. The court heard evidence ore tenus and being of opinion that the assessment was not erroneous enterеd an order denying relief and dismissing the application. The issue on appeal is whether the assessment represents the fair market value of the property.
The lot, which is located at the corner of Dover Road and Avon Road in Windsor Farms, Riсhmond, was conveyed to the appellant, Tuckahoe Woman’s Club, a nonstock corporation, in 1947, subject to a restrictive covenant which expires in 1977 under which the property can be used only as a woman’s club. The clubhouse was built thereon in 1954 of brick with a slate roof and consisting in the main of a large auditorium with small balcony, stage, reception hall and small caterer’s kitchen.
To establish the fair market value of the property the appellant offered the testimony of three experienced real estate men and the contractor who constructed the building. One was Frank W. Heindl, who had been appraising property for the last twenty years, including property in Windsor Farms, for the City of Richmond, Federal and State govеrnments, banks, insurance companies and other corporations and individuals. He had inspected this property in 1955 for the purpose of determining its fair market value. He was then informed that the building cost $124,500 and the land $10,000. He testified that it was adapted primarily for its use as a club building, not easy to sell and in his judgment it would bring not more than *736 $75,000 to $80,000 or $85,000 at a free sale. On cross-examination he said that if the City should want to acquire it by condemnation it should not pay more than $75,000 to $85,000 for it; that it was not worth more than that sum for any purpose.
George B. Snead, in the real estate business for twenty-seven years, was experienced in appraising and familiar with values in Windsor Farms. He inspected the property in 1955 for the purpose of arriving at its fair market value. He said that property built for a special use such as this when put on the market invariably had to be sold for less than reproduction cost or what it would appear to be worth, and if this property became for sale the owners would do well to get from $75,000 to $85,000 for it. On cross-еxamination he testified that if there were another club ready, able and willing to buy it for the same purpose, the appellant would be fortunate to get $75,000 to $85,000 for it, and if he were on a condemnation commission that would be his valuation of it.
J. Guthrie Smith, who hаd been a real estate broker in Richmond for thirty-six years, engaged in all phases of real estate business, was the president and sales manager of Windsor Farms, the appellant’s grantor, from 1934 to 1954, and made the sale to the appellant. Testifying as to the value of this property for sale purposes, he said his experience in appraising had led him to believe there was no fair market value for clubs or lodges or churches or things of that nature; that they do not enjoy a market like other types of property, and when asked for the fair market value of them “you more or less pull it out of the air”; that his idea of a fair selling price for this property would be $75,000, based on his thirty-six years of experience in dealing with all types of real estate. “It is just one of those things that is a matter of judgment.” On cross-examination he said he did not consider the value of the property to the Tuckahoe Woman’s Club itself because use value was “another one of those things you pull out of the air.” He illustrated that view by saying “A guy’s false teeth might be worth a lot to him but they wouldn’t mean anything to me.”
J. Leonard Moore, the contractor on the building, said the cost of construction was in the neighborhood of $112,000. He was reasonably familiar, he said, with the fair market value of property in Richmond and had done some appraising but not on a paid basis. Based on his experience he did not think the building would possibly sell for more than $75,000.
*737 The only witness for the City was J. Edward Ronntrey, its assessor of real estate who made this assessment. He had held that position since 1954 and had twelve years of experience in appraising property. He described the building and introduced photographs of it. He explained the basis of his assessment of $105,000, saying in substance that it would cost some $125,000 to reproduce the building plus the cost of the land, from which amount he made certain deductions because a building serving the same purpose and equally efficient would not cost more than $100,000. He said his purpose was to equalize the tax burden which he beliеved was the intent of the law in stating that property shall be assessed at its fair market value; that there are many properties for which there is no market value except to their owners; that the principle involved here assumes that the only market for the property is the present owner. “If these people abandoned it, our approach to the assessment would be entirely different. But so long as they use it we try to arrive at use to the present owners just like anything of a very speсial purpose nature.” He said the property could never be rented for any purpose “and I cannot conceive of it ever being sold in our lifetime because there is no other club that would want it so our only guide which is acceptаble is a depreciated reproduction cost. I have depreciated it as far as I can justify and that is the way we have arrived at $105,000.00. That is the way we have arrived at the valuation of all special purpose properties located in the city.”
On cross-examination he was asked: “You say you base this appraisal on the depreciated reproduction cost?” He answered, “Right.” He was asked whether he included any element of value to the present owner and he replied, “The value to the present owner is the only value I have to go by. It has no market value elsewhere that could be compared or justified.”
Section 169 of our Virginia Constitution provides that “all assessments of real estate and tangible рersonal property shall be at their fair market value.” In
Seaboard Air Line
v.
Chamblin,
In estimating that value, as said in the first-named case, all the capabilities of the property and all the uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted, are to be considered, but it is not a question of the value of the property to the owner.
In
Lehigh, etc., Co.
v.
Commonwealth,
In that case the assessment was reduced on proof that lands in the district where the company’s plants were located werе uniformly assessed at only 50% of the actual value. The reduction was on the ground that § 169 of the Constitution must be read in connection with § 168, which requires that taxes be uniform on the same class of subjects within the territory of the taxing authority, and where it is impossible to secure both the standard of the true value and the uniformity and equality required by law, the latter requirement is to be preferred as the just and ultimate purpose of the law. That principle was reiterated in
Skyline Swannanoa
v.
Nelson County, supra,
The problems of assessing officers in ascertaining the fair market value of property are often difficult, particularly so when the property to be assessed is of a kind not usually involved in sales and having no general market value. Problems of that kind were presented in
Washington County Nat'l Bank
v.
Washington County,
In the case at hand there is no real conflict in the evidence as to fair market value, which is the controlling standard for the assessment. The appellant’s witnesses, qualified and experienced, placed the fair market value of appellant’s property at $75,000 to $85,000. The City’s assessor, and only witness, stated in a letter to plaintiff’s counsel in October, 1955, that he agreed that if the property was then offered on the market it would not bring more than $75,000 to $85,000, but that he believed it had a value in use to the prеsent owners somewhat in excess of $100,000, and he did not believe it would be fair to other property owners to assess it for any less. He stated on his cross-examination that if the owners desired to sell it he could not conceive of its bringing more than $85,000.
Section 58-1145 of the Code provides that on an application of this sort the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the property in question is assessed at more than its fair market value or that the assessment is not uniform in its application. In
Washington County Nat'l Bank
v.
Washington County, supra,
we said that courts are reluctant to override the judgments of assessors and that the judgment of the trial court is entitled to great weight, “but, with all of this in mind, in the final analysis we follow the evidence.”
In
City of Norfolk
v.
Snyder,
For the reasons stated we hold that the 1955 assessment of the appellant’s property was excessive and erroneous; that such assessment should have been in the sum of $85,000, and that the court below should have reduced the assessment to that amount and ordered a refund of any excess tax paid in consequence thereof. Code §58-1148. The order appealed from is therefore reversed and the case is remanded for entry of an order granting that relief.
Reversed and remanded.