Keene v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 05 March 1903
• Citation: 31 Wash. 202,71 P. 769
• Parties: KEENE v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

71 P. 769

31 Wash. 202

KEENE v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 5, 1903

Appeal from superior court, King county; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Walter A. Keene against the city of Seattle and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant city appeals. Affirmed.

John W Pratt, C. A. Riddle, and Mitchell Gilliam, for appellant.

William Martin, W. A. Keene, and McClure & McClure, for respondent.

HADLEY, J.

On March 29, 1902, respondent tendered to the county treasurer of King county the amount then due and delinquent for state and county taxes for the year 1896 and subsequent years, upon certain real estate in said county, and demanded the issuance to him of certificates of delinquency. The certificates were issued. Respondent then brought this action to foreclose based upon said certificates. The city of Seattle was made a party defendant by reason of asserting claims against the property in the way of liens for street assessments. The city answered, setting up the facts upon which the assessment liens are based, and prayed judgment that respondent be required to pay each of the assessments, together with accumulated penalties and interest thereon, as a condition precedent to a decree in his favor, and that for his failure so to do the action be dismissed. Respondent demurred to the answer, which demurrer was sustained. Judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of respondent. The city has appealed.

The principal questions presented by this appeal were decided in favor of respondent's contention in McMillan v Tacoma, 26 Wash. 358, 67 P. 68. It was there decided that the holder of a general tax delinquency certificate is not required to pay delinquent street assessments which may be a lien upon real estate before he is entitled to receive a certificate of delinquency for general taxes paid by him upon the same lands. It is unnecessary to repeat here the argument used in that case. The statutes were there discussed, showing that it has been the evident policy of the Legislature of this state to make the lien for general taxes paramount over every other claim or burden that can attach to lands, and that in the nature of things such a course is not only wise, but necessary. We said in that opinion 'This policy of the Legislature is not only wise, but, in the nature of things, is necessary, in order that the existence and continuation of government may not be imperiled. The state and its subordinate municipalities cannot exist without the collection of public revenue, and serious confusion would result if the lien of taxes levied for that purpose should be made inferior to, or equal with local assessments or other liens.'

In view of our interpretation of the revenue laws in the above-mentioned case, we shall decline to hold that street assessments are of equal rank with general taxes as liens upon real property, unless we are shown a statutory declaration that is so direct that no doubt can arise that such is the legislative intent.

It is urged, however, by appellant, that the case at bar should be distinguished from McMillan v. Tacoma, supra, for the reason that the city of Seattle was acting under the provisions of a permissive statute which the city of Tacoma had not adopted as a part of its procedure. The statute referred to is found in chapter 71, p. 167, of the Session Laws of 1893. Section 8 of said act is as follows: 'The assessment roll of the county made as herein provided shall be deemed and held to be also the assessment roll of any city of the first class therein, and in cases where the charter of any such city requires delinquent assessments for local improvements or any special taxes or assessments whatever to be entered on the annual tax roll of such city, the city treasurer...