McDougall v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 01 April 1909
• Citation: 100 P. 835,52 Wash. 396
• Parties: McDOUGALL v. BRIDGES et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

100 P. 835

52 Wash. 396

McDOUGALL v. BRIDGES et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 1, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Action by Rosemary McDougall against King County and others. From a judgment for defendants Bridges and others, as drainage commissioners, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Godman & Embree, for appellant.

Ballinger Ronald, Battle & Tennant, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

In this action the appellant sought to restrain the collection of an assessment attempted to be levied upon her property by the drainage commissioners of drainage district No. 1 of King county. The facts as found by the court are not questioned by either party, and are, in substance, these: Prior to September 30, 1902, certain freeholders residing in King county, owning land requiring drainage, organized a drainage district under the act of March 20, 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 271 c. 115), and included therein, among other lands, a tract of land belonging to the appellant which contained 287 acres. Thereafter a drainage system was planned and adopted, and proceedings instituted under the provisions of the act to provide means for the construction of the necessary drains. These proceedings were carried to final decree on October 1, 1902, in which decree it was found and determined that the cost of the system would approximate the sum of $29,044.08, and that the benefit accruing to the property of the district as a whole by reason of the improvement would equal the sum of $32,991.08, and that the maximum amount of benefit which would accrue to the appellant's land would be $2.75 per acre. After the judgment had been filed in the auditor's office pursuant to the statute, the board of commissioners of the drainage district caused the full amount of the benefits accruing to the appellant's land to be assessed against it, and directed the same to be paid in four equal annual installments commencing with the year 1902. Thereupon the commissioners entered on the construction of the drains, and in due time thereafter completed the same as planned. The several installments levied against the appellant's land were paid by the appellant as they fell due; the last one being paid prior to May 31, 1906. In October, 1906, the drainage commissioners certified to and filed with the county auditor an instrument in writing by which they attempted to make another assessment against the appellant's property equal to 30 per centum of the original assessment; the instrument by which the assessment was authorized being in the following words: 'O'Brien, Washington. October 29, 1906. Mr. J. P. Agnew, County Auditor of King County Washington--Dear Sir: At a meeting held by the Drainage Commissioners of Drainage District No. 1 of King County, you are hereby authorized and empowered to levy and assess upon the tax rolls of King County, thirty per cent. of the amount of the judgment in the case of Drainage District No. 1 of King County vs. M. J. Hayes, et al., No. 32912, against the property described in said judgment, one-fourth of the thirty per cent to go on construction fund and three-fourths or the balance to go on maintenance fund. Yours truly, Charles J. Nelson, Secretary Drainage District No. 1.' At the time of this attempted assessment there were a large number of outstanding warrants issued by the drainage district, but for want of evidence the court did not and could not find the purpose for which they were issued, nor the amount the sum would total. The purpose of the assessment was to pay off the outstanding warrants, and to maintain the drainage system during the year 1907. The drainage commissioners did not, however, make any estimate of the amount it would require to maintain the drainage system for the year 1907 prior to directing the assessment to be levied, nor did the court find what such cost would be, but it was found that the sum required for that purpose would be less than the amount attempted to be levied. It was further found that the county auditor on receiving the notice from the drainage commissioners caused the land of the appellant to be assessed for the amount therein set forth, and the assessment was carried onto the tax rolls of King county as a lawful assessment upon the appellant's property. On the foregoing facts the trial judge rendered a decree canceling one-fourth of the assessment, being the part specified in the commissioners' certificate as levied for the construction fund, and held it valid as to the remainder. From the refusal of the court to cancel the entire assessment, this appeal is taken.

...