
    Mineral Railroad & Mining Company, Appellant, v. Northumberland County Commissioners.
    
      Taxation — Real estate — Assessment—Reduction of assessment— Appeals from hoard of revision.
    
    An appeal by an owner of land from an assessment thereof by a board of revision of taxes is properly dismissed, where the party complaining does not allege that its land has been assessed too high, but only that other lands of the same character, and of the same relative or greater value, have been assessed too low.
    Mineral Railroad & Mining Co. v. Northumberland County Commissioners, 229 Pa. 436, followed.
    Argued April 13, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 86, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 324, dismissing appeal from valuation of coal lands by a board of revision in case of Mineral Railroad & Mining Company v. Northumberland County Commissioners.
    Before Pell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Argued April 14, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T.,
    1913, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 325, dismissing appeal from valuation of coal lands by a board of revision in case of Mineral Railroad & Mining Company v. Northumber-
    land County Commissioners.
    Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeals from valuation of coal lands by the county commissioners acting as a board of revision. Before Cummings, P. J., and Moser, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    The court dismissed the appeals. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
    
      Errors assigned, among others, were in dismissing the appeals.
    
      
      W. H. M. Oram, for appellant in both, cases.
    
      C. B. Bavidge, with him J. H. McDevitt, for appellees in both cases.
    May 28, 1913:
   Per Curiam,

These two appeals raise the same questions and may, therefore, be disposed of together. The complaint of the appellant is not that its lands have been assessed too high, but that others of the same relative or greater value have been assessed too low, and it is most earnestly contended that the court below should have sustained the appeals from the valuations fixed by the county commissioners as a board of revision. We have not been persuaded that either of these appeals ought to be sustained. What was said in Mineral Railroad and Mining Company v. Northumberland County Commissioners, 229 Pa. 436, fully vindicates the action of the court below.

Appeals dismissed at appellant’s costs.  