Lewis v. Bishop

• Decision Date: 10 May 1898
• Citation: 53 P. 165,19 Wash. 312
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LEWIS v. BISHOP ET AL., COUNTY COM'RS.

53 P. 165

19 Wash. 312

LEWIS v. BISHOP ET AL., COUNTY COM'RS.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 10, 1898

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

Certiorari proceedings by Myer Lewis against William Bishop, Sr., and others, county commissioners of Jefferson county, and as the board of equalization of said county, and M. M. Smith, clerk of said board of equalization and as auditor of said county. Writ dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Morris B. Sachs, for appellant.

Thos M. Fisher, for respondents.

GORDON J.

The appellant instituted this proceeding in the superior court for Jefferson county for the purpose of obtaining a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of equalization. Upon the return to the writ the lower court, on final hearing, gave judgment against the plaintiff, and thereupon this appeal was prosecuted. It appears from the record that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of California, and the owner of 18.37 acres of land known as the "Port Townsend Sawmill Property," and that said property was assessed for the year 1897 as follows: Land, $1,600; improvements, $2,000; total, $3,600 -as appears from the return of the assessor for said county filed with the clerk of the board of equalization on the 1st day of August, 1897. From the return made to the writ by the respondents it appears that the following orders were made by that board concerning this property: "On Wednesday, August 11th, the following change in value was ordered: Myer Lewis, 18 and 37/100 acres, in section 1, township 30, range 1 W., from valuation by assessor of $3,600 to valuation of $9,300." "Clerk of board to notify Myer Lewis that notice sent him August 11th, 1897, in reference to assessment on lands in section 1, township 30, range 1 W., was in error, and that said assessment is reduced from $18,000 to $17,000. ***" On Monday, August 16th, the following proceedings were had and done: "On motion the board reconsidered its action, taken August 11th, 1897, in the matter of the assessment of Myer Lewis on 18 and 37/100 acres in section 1, township 30, range 1 W., in which it raised the assessment on said land from $3,600 to $9,300; also order made August 12th, 1897, in reference to same matter. ***" And the following final order was made: "Ordered by the board that the assessment of Myer Lewis on 18 and 37/100 acres in section 1, township 30, range 1 W., be raised from $3,600 to $17,000." Notice of this order was directed to be given by the clerk of the board by mail to Lewis, addressed to San Francisco, and also Port Townsend, citing him to appear on or before August 21st, to show cause why his assessment "should not be so raised." These notices were placed in the post office at Port Townsend, August 17, 1897, at about the hour of 6 p. m., and on the 21st of August the board of equalization adjourned. The lower court found that the true value of the land, according to the judgment of the as sessor, was $16,000; that after delivering the assessment roll to the board of equalization and his attention had been called to the assessment the assessor added a cipher to the $1,600, thereby changing it to $16,000, and also changed the total from $3,600 to $18,000; and further found that he intended to assess it at that sum, and had set down the figure $1,600 in lieu thereof through inadvertence and mistake. The court further found "that said defendants, as such board of equalization, between the 4th and 21st days of August, 1897, made several irregular and inconsistent orders in attempting to equalize the assessment, the intent and result of which was to equalize the same by leaving the valuation of said land stand at $16,000, and by reducing the valuation placed by the assessor on the improvements thereon from $2,000 to $1,000, thereby reducing the total assessed valuation of said land and improvements of plaintiff from $18,000 to $17,000; *** that said valuation of $16,000 placed on said land and $1,000 placed on said improvements were fair and reasonable, and not above the value placed upon other property in the same neighborhood and similarly situated, and that plaintiff is in no wise wronged by the action of the said board."

Respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal, contending that the court had no authority to issue a writ of review in this case. In support of the motion to dismiss, it is urged that the board of equalization provided by section 58, c. 71, p. 162, Laws 1897, does not exercise judicial functions, and that section 4, p. 115, Laws 1895, restricts the granting of the writ to cases where "an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, or one acting illegally, or to correct any erroneous or void proceeding, *** and there is no appeal, nor in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law." In Olympia Waterworks v. Thurston Co., 14 Wash. 268, 44 P. 267, cited by both counsel, it was held that an appeal did not lie from a decision of the board of equalization to the superior court. In the course of the opinion it was said: "*** It is claimed by the water company that the equalization of the valuation is in the nature of a judicial proceeding, and within the proper jurisdiction of the courts. There are some cases which so hold, and there are others from courts of equal repute which hold directly to the contrary. But, in our opinion, it is not necessary for the purposes of this case that we should decide as to the nature of the proceeding before the board of equalization." The disposition of the motion in the present case involves a determination of the character of function exercised by such board, and we have become satisfied that the...