North American Dredging Co. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 08 January 1910
• Citation: 56 Wash. 565,106 P. 162
• Parties: NORTH AMERICAN DREDGING CO. v. TAYLOR, County Treasurer.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

106 P. 162

56 Wash. 565

NORTH AMERICAN DREDGING CO. v. TAYLOR, County Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 8, 1910

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Mason Irwin Judge.

Action by the North American Dredging Company against C.J. Taylor as Treasurer of Chehalis County. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. H Abel, for appellant.

Wm. E. Campbell, J. L. McMurray, and H. G. Rowland, for respondent.

CHADWICK J.

The steam dredger Pacific was built at Tacoma in Pierce county, Wash., in the year 1903, and was from that time until about April 7, 1905, almost continuously engaged in dredging, or lying in the harbors of Pierce county. In the year 1904, appellant listed the dredger and its equipment for taxation in Pierce county, and thereafter paid the taxes for that year. The property was also listed by the superintendent in charge for the year 1905. On April 1, 1905, and for some time prior thereto, appellant had been engaged in the performance of a government contract in the harbor at Tacoma. This contract expired on March 1, 1905, and was completed under an extension agreement. On April 9, 1905, the Pacific was taken with all its equipment and appliances to Honolulu in the Hawaiian Islands, by way of San Francisco, Cal., there to be engaged for a definite period. The dredger was a seagoing, self-propelling vessel. On or about November 2, 1907, the dredger was brought from without the state of Washington to Grays Harbor in Chehalis county, and was there engaged in dredging the harbor under a contract with the United States government, expiring on or before the 15th day of October, 1908. On or about March 5, 1908, the respondent, as treasurer of Chehalis county, was about to seize and sell the Pacific, with all equipment, appurtenances, and appliances, under a writ issued by the treasurer of Pierce county, when he was restrained by an order of the superior court of Chehalis county. The fact is further stipulated that the person who signed the detail list for 1905 was the superintendent of the dredger, having authority to purchase supplies, contract for repairs, to employ labor, and issue time checks for the payment of labor, and that, if the officers of appellant were present, they would testify that the superintendent had no authority to list the said property for taxation. It also appears that in 1903 the dredger was temporarily enrolled in the office of the collector of customs at Tacoma under a carpenter's certificate; that the home port of the dredger was given at that time as Camden, N. J.; that the name and port were painted on the stern of the dredger as required by law just prior to her sailing for San Francisco. This was done under an order of the shipping commissioner. The fact is also stipulated that, at all times during the performance of the government contract in Tacoma harbor, it was the intention of the appellant to remove the dredger from Tacoma and from the state of Washington as soon as the government contract should be completed. Upon the hearing in the court below, the prayer of appellant for a restraining order was denied, and judgment was entered in favor of respondent.

Error is assigned as follows: '(1) It was error to hold that the Pacific had a situs in 1905, for purposes of taxation, within the state of Washington. (2) Appellant was deprived of its property without due process of law, contrary to article 14 of the federal Constitution. (3) It was error to render judgment, denying an injunction, and sustaining the validity of said tax.'

If the trial court was right in holding the state of Washington to be the situs of the property, that fact is decisive of the case, as the second and third assignments are only incidental thereto. It is the general rule that vessels engaged in state or interstate traffic with no established situs, but going in and out of a port upon a fixed run, or as the necessities of the business engaged upon may demand, or when engaged upon no fixed schedule, but sailing from one port to another as a carrier of state, interstate, or international traffic, shall be assessed at the home port, or at the domicile of the owner. Northwestern Lumber Co. v. Chehalis County, 25 Wash. 95, 64 P. 909, 54 L. R. A. 212, 87 Am. St. Rep. 747; Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U.S. 409, 26 S.Ct. 679, 50 L.Ed. 1082; Commonwealth v. Am. Dredging Co., 122 Pa. 386, 15 A. 443, 1 L. R. A. 237, 9 Am. St. Rep. 116; California Shipping Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 150 Cal. 145, 88 P. 704; Olson v. City & County of San Francisco, 148 Cal. 80, 82 P. 850, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 197, 113 Am. St. Rep. 191; Johnson v. De Bary-Baya Merchants Line, 37 Fla. 499, 19 So. 640, 37 L. R. A. 518; Am. Mail S. S. Co. v. Crowell (N. J. Sup.) 68 A. 752; People ex rel. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Com'rs, etc., 58 N.Y. 242. However, a vessel may be assessed without reference to the home port or the residence of the principal owner or agent when it is put to such use as to impress it with a local character. National Dredging Co. v. State, 99 Ala. 462, 12 So. 720; McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co. (C. C.) 90 F. 360; Galveston v. J. M. Guffey Petroleum Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 113 S.W. 585; State v. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 116 S.W. 617; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U.S. 299, 25 S.Ct. 686, 49 L.Ed. 1059, Id., 102 Va. 576, 46 S.E. 783, 102 Am. St. Rep. 855. It has been held that the declared intention of the owner concerning the future use or removal of personal property will not exempt it from taxation. Stoddert v. Ward, 31 Md. 562, 100 Am. Dec. 83.

The Pacific was built...