to be an approximation of true value in money, noting that to hold otherwise would. be to marginalize the prohibition against discriminatory assessment practices. Id.. at 465. The Supreme Court’s holding in State ex rel. Kahler is of analogous application here. The assessors’ admitted error in applying, an otherwise proper valuation methodology cannot be remediated because some other valuation methodology, that was not employed by the assessors might have produced a similar valuation. That is especially true in this case, as the Commission did not adopt the assessors’ expert’s valuation methodology or valuation amounts, even though the assessors asked the Commission to do so at the conclusion of the hearing. See, e.g., Drey v. State Tax Commission, 346 S.W.2d 228, 234-35 (Mo. 1961) (<HOLDING>). Although the Commission did not adopt Mr.
holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that commission order affirming assessors assessment despite fact that assessor wholly ignored depletion in value as a factor in determining assessed value could not be affirmed on appeal based on alternative expert evidence given assessors unaccounted for and unsupported failure to give weight to the fact of  extensive depletion holding that the failure to place a dollar value on a possible decrease in property value was not unreasonable holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value