Ballard v. Wooster

• Decision Date: 09 July 1935
• Docket Number: 25693.
• Citation: 182 Wash. 408,45 P.2d 511
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BALLARD et al. v. WOOSTER. SEATTLE MEDICAL ARTS BLDG. CO. v. SAME.

45 P.2d 511

182 Wash. 408

BALLARD et al. v. WOOSTER.

SEATTLE MEDICAL ARTS BLDG. CO. v. SAME.

No. 25693.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 9, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.

Actions by Estelle Ballard and another and by the Seattle Medical Arts Building Company against Melvin S. Wooster, as County Assessor of King County, state of Washington. From the judgments, plaintiffs appeal.

Judgments affirmed.

John F Reed and Bayley & Croson, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Warren G. Magnuson and David J. Williams, both of Seattle (M. H Ingersoll, of Seattle, of counsel), for respondent.

HOLCOMB Justice.

Ten cases in all were brought in King county involving substantially the same tax questions. It was stipulated by their attorneys and the attorneys for respondent, as county assessor of King county, that the two above entitled cases be consolidated for hearing for the reason that they represent the two groups of cases involved in all the tax cases then pending in the lower court.

The first case, which we will refer to as the Ballard case, is typical of that group of cases where the matter was presented to the King county equalization board and an appeal taken from that board to the state tax commission and suits in the lower court instituted after the decision of the state tax commission. The second group of cases, which will be referred to as the Medical Arts Building case, represents that group of cases where the matter of valuation was not presented to the King county equalization board or to the state tax commission, but taken directly into court.

In all of the actions it is alleged that the county assessor threatens to and is about to enter and, unless restrained will enter upon the assessment roll the valuations as fixed by the county and state equalization boards; that if such excess valuations be placed upon the tax rolls and tax levies based thereon are made clouds will be cast upon the titles of the properties in the amount of such excess valuation. All of them prayed for decrees enjoining the county assessor from entering such valuations upon the real estate and improvements on any of his tax records and from using any valuation in excess of their own valuation for any purpose in connection with any of the steps to be taken by the assessor in respect to the assessment or valuation of such properties.

Respondent demurred to each of the complaints and moved to set aside the temporary restraining orders theretofore granted and filed affidavits in support of the motions to dissolve the restraining orders which are uncontradicted. The affidavits made by the assessor (now Mr. Meisner, succeeding Mr Wooster, former county assessor) in each case deposes:

'That the records of his office show that on December 13, 1934, at the time that said complaints and orders to show cause in the above consolidated cases were served upon the assessor, every single act required by the assessor, to be performed having to do with the properties involved in said causes, in the preparation of the rolls for transmission to the auditor of King County, in conformance with the laws of the State of Washington, had been performed, except the signing by the assessor of a certain instrument in the form set forth in Rem. Rev. Stat. § 11240.'

The uncontradicted record submitted by respondent also shows that the county assessor listed and assessed the property between February 1 and May 31, 1934, in compliance with Rem. Rev Stat. § 11140; and certified his rolls to the county board of equalization on the first Monday in July, 1934, according to Id. § 11148; that the state tax commission completed assessments of railroad and telegraph properties and certified the same by July 1, according to Id. § 11164; that the county board of equalization convened the first Monday in July and adjourned two weeks later, Id. § 11220; that by the first Monday in August the assessor sent copies of the abstract of assessed valuations, as corrected by the county board, to the state board of equalization pursuant to Id. § 11220; that three plaintiffs appealed to the state board pursuant to Id. § 11092 within ten days; that the state tax commission on the first Tuesday of September made and equalized the assessment rolls as required by law pursuant to Id. § 11222, and certified the same to the state auditor; that the state auditor within three days after receiving the same, which included the levy by the state board for state purposes, transmitted to the county assessor the transcript of the proceedings of the state board, together with the amount of state taxes to be levied in King county as prescribed by Id. § 11223; that upon receipt of the certificate of the state tax commission, the county assessor certified to the board of county commissioners the total assessed value of the property within King county as shown by the balanced and completed roll as prescribed by Id. § 11224; that Before the second Monday in October the county commissioners fixed and levied the taxes and certified to the county assessor the amount so levied upon the property in the county pursuant to Id. § 11239; that thereupon and Before service of any process in these cases the county assessor extended the taxes so levied upon the tax rolls and the rate per cent. necessary to raise the amount of taxes levied, which was computed upon the assessed value of the property and all taxes so assessed against each of these properties were added together and extended on the rolls as prescribed in Id. § 11240; that at the time of the service upon him the valuations, complained of in these actions as fixed and determined by the boards of equalization, had already been entered upon every report and record of every kind and nature where, by the atatutes, it is...