Landes' Estate Co. v. Clallam County

• Decision Date: 30 June 1898
• Citation: 53 P. 670,19 Wash. 569
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LANDES' ESTATE CO. v. CLALLAM COUNTY ET AL.

53 P. 670

19 Wash. 569

LANDES' ESTATE CO. v. CLALLAM COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 30, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Clallam county; James G. McClinton Judge.

Action by Landes' Estate Company against Clallam county and others. From the judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. C. Hatch, for appellants.

Benton Embree, for respondent.

SCOTT C.J.

This action was brought to obtain a reduction in the assessment of taxes on certain real estate for the years 1895-96, on the ground that it had been fraudulently assessed at much more than its true value. A tender was made of what the plaintiff averred to be the amount of taxes justly due. A trial was had, and a reduction made, but not as low as the plaintiff claimed. The defendant has appealed. It was alleged, and the court found, that at the time of making the assessment the assessor or his deputy informed the plaintiff that such assessment would be the same as for the year 1894, or that it would not exceed that amount, but thereafter in fact assessed the property for a largely-increased amount, and that the plaintiff, relying upon said representations, and having no notice of the valuations placed on the property by the assessor, did not go before the board of equalization and ask for a reduction, and did not know of such exorbitant valuations until a long time after the board had adjourned. There is no contention that the plaintiff did not act diligently when it obtained the knowledge. The court found the value of the property to be the same as that placed upon it in 1894, and also found that the board of equalization, on account of an oversight, did not consider or equalize the valuation of said lands with that placed upon other lands in the vicinity, but would have done so but for such unintentional omission, and that said property was assessed for much more than like property in the vicinity. The finding of the court on the matter of the assessment was in substance, that it was a fraudulent one, and we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain it. We fully concur in the appellant's argument to the effect that an assessment ought not to be interfered with unless a substantial over-valuation is clearly established; but without entering into the details of the several assessments discussed by appellant, we are of the opinion that the reduction granted by the court was a substantial one. Questions are...