Miller v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 06 August 1908 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | MILLER et al. v. HENDERSON et ux. |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. E. Rice, Judge.
Action by Mary M. Miller and others against A. G. Henderson and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Blaine Tucker & Hyland and James B. Kinne, for appellants.
Millett & Harmon and Hayden & Langhorne, for respondents.
This is an action brought by the appellants against the respondents to recover possession and quiet title to real property. The property in question is situated in Lewis county and subject to taxation therein. The taxes levied against the property for the year 1895 and prior years had been left unpaid by the then owners, and, being delinquent the county in 1901 began proceedings to foreclose the tax lien. To that end the county treasurer issued to the county certificates of delinquency on the property and gave the notice required by statute summoning the delinquents to appear and defend the action or pay the amount due. Default having been made, judgment of foreclosure was entered on December 18, 1901. On January 31, 1902, the certificates were filed with the county clerk, and thereafter the property was sold under the judgment of foreclosure to the respondents for the amount of the taxes then due thereon. The appellants, in their complaint, set forth the foreclosure proceedings had by the county, and averred that the judgment entered therein and the title of the respondents based thereon were void and of no effect, for the reason that the certificates of delinquency on which the proceedings were based were not filed with the clerk of the court at or before the time the county treasurer proceeded to foreclose the tax lien embraced in the certificates. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. The appellants elected to stand on the complaint, whereupon judgment of dismissal, with costs, was entered against them. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.
The section of the statute relied upon by the appellants to avoid the foreclosure proceedings reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Mulhausen v. Superior Court for Thurston County
... ... 1293. It is ... inherent in the exercise of sovereign power to require taxes ... to be paid under summary process. Miller v ... Henderson, 50 Wash. 200, 96 P. 1052; Scottish Union ... & National Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U.S. 611, 25 S.Ct ... 345, ... ...
-
Hood River County v. Dabney
...(1949).6 This was the test adopted in Frederick v. Douglas County, 176 Or. 54, 64, 155 P.2d 925, 930 (1945) from Miller v. Henderson, 50 Wash. 200, 96 P. 1052, 1053 (1908).7 The full text of ORS 312.214 is as follows:'(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, and for all purposes of ......
-
McGowan v. Elder
... ... St. 285, 83 P. 705; Flannigan v. Towle, 8 ... Cal.App. 229. 96 P. 507; Couts v. Cornell, 147 Cal ... 560, 109 Am. St. 168. 82 P. 194; Miller v. Henderson, 50 ... Wash. 200, 96 P. 1053.) ... Where ... the owner of land makes no offer to pay the taxes justly due, ... equity will ... ...
-
Peters v. Sjoholm
...the court stated: It is inherent in the exercise of sovereign power to require taxes to be paid under summary process. Miller v. Henderson, 50 Wash. 200, 96 P. 1052; Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U.S. 611, 25 S.Ct. 345, 49 L.Ed. 619. The taxpayer has no vested right in any ......