Corwin Inv. Co. v. White

• Decision Date: 06 January 1932
• Docket Number: 23393.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CORWIN INV. CO. et al. v. WHITE, County Treasurer, et al. SURETY FINANCE CO. v. SAME.

6 P.2d 607

166 Wash. 195

CORWIN INV. CO. et al. v. WHITE, County Treasurer, et al.

SURETY FINANCE CO. v. SAME.

No. 23393.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 6, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

Actions by the Corwin Investment Company and others, and the Surety Finance Company, against Richard White, as County Treasurer of Yakima County, and Yakima County. From a judgment for plaintiffs in each action, defendant Yakima County appeals.

Affirmed.

O Sandvig and M. C. Delle, both of Yakima, for appellants.

Richards Gilbert & Conklin and Parker & Parker, all of Yakima, for respondents.

MAIN, J.

In the superior court of Yakima county, two actions were brought to recover back void taxes paid under protest. In one of the actions, there was a number of plaintiffs; and in the other only one. The actions were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and will be treated here as one action. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings or fact, from which it was concluded that the taxes claimed could be recovered. From the judgment entered awarding to each of the plaintiffs the amount of the void tax which it had paid, the defendant Yakima county appeals.

There is no dispute as to the facts, and they may be summarized as follows: In 1929, the Legislature passed a law providing for a tax, measured by income, upon banks and financial corporations, and for the assessment and collection thereof. Laws 1929, c. 151, p. 380. The tax under this act would become delinquent March 15, 1930. Prior to this time, the respondents had received notice from the county treasurer that the taxes would be due and payable, and the payments were made on March 13 and 14 of that year. Before they were paid, the parties representing the respondents informed the county treasurer that they understood that an action was to be brought to determine the validity of the law of 1930, and that they desired to pay the taxes in such a way that, if that law were held unconstitutional, they could be recovered back. The matter was discussed with the county treasurer, and he suggested that the proper way would be to write on the checks 'paid under protest.' This was done with reference to the taxes by each of the respondents. In two instances, the receipts issued made the same recital. The law of 1930 was by this court held to be unconstitutional Burr, Conrad & Broom v. Chase, 157 Wash. 393, 289 P. 551, and was finally disposed of here by the denial of a petition for rehearing the 7th day of August, 1930. Thereafter, and on November 25, 1930, the various respondents, excepting one, filed their claims for a refund of the taxes. The other respondent filed its claim for a refund January 31, 1931. The law having been declared unconstitutional, the taxes were illegally exacted. Void taxes voluntarily paid cannot be recovered back. Phelps v. Tacoma, 15 Wash. 367, 46 P. 400; Pittock & Leadbetter Lumber Co. v. Skamania County, 98 Wash. 145, 167 P. 108; Robinson v. Kittitas County, 101 Wash. 422, 172 P. 553. Taxes which are void, but which have been paid under protest, may be recovered back. Tozer v. Skagit County, 34 Wash. 147, 75 P. 638; Owings v. Olympia, 88 Wash. 289, 152 P. 1019; Stimson Timber Co. v. Mason County, 97 Wash. 205, 166 P. 251. From the facts stated, it distinctly appears that the taxes in question were paid under protest, and that the county treasurer was informed that they were being so paid and the reason therefor. In the briefs there is covered, somewhat comprehensively, the question of whether the taxes exacted of the respondents were paid under duress, but it is not necessary here to go into that question, because, as stated, the foundation for the recovery was laid by the payments being made under protest.

It is said, however, that a recovery should be denied because the claims for the refund were not filed within a reasonable time. An action against a county to recover void taxes is one which arises upon an implied contract, not in writing, and the threeyear statute of limitations applies. Pacific Coal & Lumber Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wash. 279, 233 P. 953. A claim filed within a reasonable time and within the statutory, period is sufficient as to time. Byram v. Thurston...