First Thought Gold Mines v. Stevens County
| Decision Date | 09 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 12802. |
| Citation | 91 Wash. 437,157 P. 1080 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIRST THOUGHT GOLD MINES, Limited, v. STEVENS COUNTY. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Stevens County; W. H. Jackson Judge.
Action by the First Though Gold Mines, Limited, against Stevens County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded, with direction to enter judgment.
Jesseph & Bourland and F. Leo Grinstead, all of Colville, for appellant.
Howard W. Stull and Stull, Wentz & Bailey, all of Colville, for respondent.
Action to cancel and set aside the assessed valuations placed upon plaintiff's gold and silver mining properties for the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, to require defendant county to accept an equitable amount as taxes for those years, and to cancel all tax liens and certificates against the property.
Plaintiff is the owner of 141.7 acres of mineral land in Stevens county, having purchased the same in 1899 for between $25,000 and $30,000. From that time until 1906 it developed the property by digging tunnels, etc., and in the latter year began shipping ore to the smelters. The ore assayed an average of $15 or $16 a ton, and until the year ending June 1, 1910, yielded a profit. It was at all times uncertain, however, and no great amount of paying ore was ever known at any one time. After July, 1910, there were no further receipts from any smelters, and each year since then the operation of the mine and its maintenance has caused a deficit. It is clear that at the present time there is no paying ore in sight, and whether more will be discovered is purely speculative. The board of equalization on the hearing on the application for a reduction in the assessed valuation were advised of this condition, and no one appeared before the board to testify that the land had any real value as mineral land. At the time of trial about 6,700 tons of ore were piled up on the dump. This ran on an average between $3 and $4 a ton, which would not justify sending it to the smelter.
It is shown by the record that contiguous land of the same general nature as plaintiff's was assessed at a valuation of $4 to $10 an acre. Plaintiff's 141.7 acres was assessed as follows:
For the year 1909 .. $80,200
1910 $80,000
1911 $80,000
The reduction of 50 per cent. in the valuation placed upon the property in 1912 was made after the board of equalization had for the first time visited the property. The court made no findings, and entered judgment placing the following valuations on the property:
For the year 1909 .. $80,200
1910 .. $60,000
1911 .. $40,000
Costs were awarded to neither party. Plaintiff appeals.
Appellant contends that the evidence not only warrants, but makes imperative, a much greater reduction than that made by the court, and that the property should be assessed the same as neighboring properties of the same general character, plus the value of the improvements. It is the established law in this state that courts will grant relief from a grossly inequitable and palpably excessive overvaluation of real property for taxation as constructively fraudulent, even though the assessing officers may have proceeded in good faith, and this without regard to the action of the board of equalization. Whatcom County v. Fairhaven Land Co., 7 Wash. 101, 34 P. 563; Benn v. Chehalis County, 11 Wash. 134, 39 P. 365; Knapp v. King County, 17 Wash. 567, 50 P. 480; Miller v. Pierce County, 28 Wash. 110, 68 P. 358; Henderson v. Pierce County, 37 Wash. 201, 79 P. 617; Dickson v. Kittitas County, 42 Wash. 429, 84 P. 855; Case v. San Juan County, 59 Wash. 222, 109 P. 809; Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. King County, 62 Wash. 409, 113 P. 1114, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 943; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Pierce County, 77 Wash. 315, 137 P. 433.
Each case of this character must of necessity rest upon its own facts. On the facts before us we are satisfied that the assessments, even as reduced by the trial court, are still so excessive as to invoke the rule of the foregoing decisions. The evidence is overwhelming that the vein or lode of paying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Trigg.
...owners who shall pursue the proper statutory method to recover the taxes thus improperly imposed.” In First Thought Gold Mines v. Stevens County, 91 Wash. 437, 157 P. 1080, the Washington Supreme Court decided: “The courts will grant relief from a grossly inequitable and palpably excessive ......
-
Continental Nat. Bank of Salt Lake City v. Naylor
... ... BANK OF SALT LAKE CITY v. NAYLOR, County Treasurer No. 3199 Supreme Court of Utah ... solvent debtor." ... First ... in order following the line of appellant's ... 409, 22 Am. St. Rep. 136; First Thought Gold Mines ... Co. v. Stevens County , 91 ... ...
-
Adams County v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...in the following additional extracts from the same issue: "The gist of the rule is stated in the case of First Thought Gold Mines v. Stevens County, 91 Wash. 437, 157 P. 1080, as follows: `It is the established law of this state that courts will grant relief from a grossly inequitable and p......
-
Roon v. King County
... ... Appellant's ... first, and principal, contention is that upon the facts ... a court of equity to grant relief. First Thought Gold ... Mines v. Stevens County, 91 Wash. 437, 157 ... ...