Miller v. Pierce County

• Decision Date: 24 March 1902
• Citation: 28 Wash. 110,68 P. 358
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MILLER et al. v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.

68 P. 358

28 Wash. 110

MILLER et al. v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 24, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; W. H. Snell, Judge.

Action by John F. Miller and others against Pierce county and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

J. W A. Nichols and John C. Stallcup, for appellants.

F Campbell, for respondents.

DUNBAR, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, given upon the demurrer of defendants to the complaint of the plaintiffs; the action being to remove a cloud from title created by an overvaluation made by the assessor of Pierce county on the lands of the plaintiffs within said county. The complaint shows that said real estate premises were valued for taxation for the year 1896 at the sum of $6,750, for the year 1897 at the sum of $5,075, for the year 1898 at the sum of $5,075, for the year 1899 at the sum of $6,075, and for the year 1900 at the sum of $980, and that the taxes remain unpaid thereon for each of said years. It is alleged that the premises are not now, and never were worth more than $900, which would have been a fair and legal valuation for taxation for each of said years; that the defendant county has, by virtue of a levy made upon said excessive valuation, charged against said premises for the taxes levied for the year 1896 the sum of $225.39, for the year 1897 the sum of $160.51, for the year 1898 the sum of $137.21, for the year 1899 the sum of $121.79, and for the year 1900 the sum of $47.38, and asserts a lien against the said premises for the same as legal and valid. They allege that on the 11th day of June, 1901, before the commencement of this action, they tendered to the treasurer of said county the sum of $200 in payment of the taxes for all of said years, which was refused, and they hold themselves ready, and the said amount in readiness for acceptance, and further allege that they now stand ready, able, and willing to pay the just and legal amount of taxes to which their said property was and is liable. The fifteenth allegation of the complaint is as follows: 'That the said assessed valuations fixed by said assessors of said county of Pierce were fixed arbitrarily, without reference to the true value, and as part of an unlawful scheme and plan on the part of the taxing officers to overassess large portions of the property of the county in order to raise the debt limit of the county for the purpose of enabling the officers of said county to increase the indebtedness of the county by issuing bonds and warrants and other evidences of indebtedness against said county far in excess of the true and full limit of indebtedness as fixed by the laws and constitution of the state. And in furtherance of said unlawful purpose, and by means of said overvaluation, said county officers did create indebtedness against said county as aforesaid in excess of the legal limitations thereof, and thereby unlawfully increased the tax burden of these plaintiffs. That said assessors and taxing officers, wrongfully and unlawfully discriminating against plaintiffs' said property, at the same time of overassessing same during each and all of said years knowingly and purposely listed, assessed, and valued for taxation other large quantities of the taxable property of the said city and county at amounts greatly below its true value, and such unjust discrimination was made in favor of other property in the vicinity of plaintiffs, and of like kind and character, whereby and by reason of said unjust discrimination the burden of taxation was made to rest unequally and with unjust and disproportionate weight upon the property of these plaintiffs. That, at the time said valuations were placed upon said property by the assessors for the purpose of taxation, the assessors did not view the said land, but their deputies did view the same, and did disclose to said assessors that the same was of little or no value; that the same was gravelly and not good land; and the said assessors knowingly, purposely, and fraudulently placed the said values upon said land for taxation at from five to six times, and more, of its true valuation, for fraudulent purposes, at the same time placing values upon other lands of like kind and character and quality in the same vicinity for taxation at much less than one-half like values. That the said assessors refused to accept the estimate of value ascertained and stated by the said deputies who viewed the said premises, the same being much less in amount than that fixed upon the same by the said assessors. That such arbitrary action on the part of such assessors was resorted to for the purpose of supplementing the loss in taxation which would otheriwse result by their unjust discrimination and favoritism...