City of Puyallup v. Lakin

• Decision Date: 28 January 1907
• Citation: 45 Wash. 368,88 P. 578
• Parties: OITY OF PUYALLUP v. LAKIN, County Treasurer.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

88 P. 578

45 Wash. 368

OITY OF PUYALLUP v. LAKIN, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 28, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Action by the city of Puyallup against Ed. M. Lakin, county treasurer. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The statute referred to in the second paragraph of the opinion is Sess. Laws 1903, p. 74, c. 59, § 3.

M. F Porter and T. L. Stiles, for appellant.

Charles O. Bates, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The respondent, as treasurer of Pierce county, levied upon a boiler, two pumps, and a condenser, which constituted a part of the machinery of the pumping plant supplying the city of Puyallup with water, for unpaid personal taxes claimed to have been levied on the water plant for the year 1905. This plant was formerly owned by the Puyallup Water & Light Company, a private corporation. On the 1st day of September 1905, the appellant purchased the property from the water and light company. On July 31, 1905, the county assessor filed his list of the plant, valuing it for taxation at $10,554. In October, 1905, the county commissioners levied the taxes for that year, and levied the sum of $365.92 as tax on the water plant. The tax not having been paid, the respondent, as treasurer, seized the property, and was threatening to sell it when this action was brought to test the validity of the tax and recover possession. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and rendered judgment dismissing the action from which judgment this appeal is taken.

It is contended by the appellant, first, that the property was not taxable, being the property of a municipal corporation; and second, that, even though the property was taxable, inasmuch as it was machinery incorporated into the public water system of the city of Puyallup, it was not subject to levy. The statute provides: 'The taxes assessed upon personal property shall be a lien upon all real and personal property of the person assessed from and after the date upon which such assessment is made.' And the result of this case depends upon the construction of this statute. It is the contention of the appellant that the phrase 'taxes assessed' should be construed to mean taxes levied, and that, therefore, no lien attached until after the levy, which was made in October, subsequent to the sale of the property to the municipality. But this court, in the case of ...