Northern P. Ry. Co. v. State

Citation144 Wash. 505,258 P. 482
Decision Date30 July 1927
Docket Number20377.
PartiesNORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. STATE et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

Action by the Northern Pacific Railway Company against the State of Washington and certain counties. From a judgment and order granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the counties appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. T Reid, C. A. Murray, and L. B. da Ponte, all of Seattle, for appellants.

John H Dunbar and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

On October 13, 1925, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, as plaintiff, filed a complaint in the superior court of Thurston county, in which it named as defendants the state of Washington and some 23 of the counties of the state. The counties named are counties through which the respondent's railway lines extend, and in which it has property subject to taxation. The object and purpose of the action, as stated in the complaint, was to secure a reduction of the assessed value of its property made for the year 1925 for taxation purposes, which property it alleged was excessively overvalued when compared with the assessed values of other taxable property of the counties named. The railway company suffered the action to rest with the filing of the complaint. It did not issue and serve a summons on the defendants, nor did it apply to the court for any form of writ or process. On November 12, 1925, the county of Benton through its prosecuting attorney, made a voluntary appearance in the action, filing a motion for a change of venue to that county, and a motion asking the court to require the respondent to separately state its cause of action against it. There was no immediate service of motions on the respondent, and the cause was suffered to rest until November 16, 1926, when the remaining counties voluntarily appeared in the action. On such appearance each of such counties filed an answer to the complaint, admitting and denying certain of its allegations, and pleading new matter affirmatively.

The answers were in substance the same. In effect, it was alleged in the affirmative matter that a tax levy had been made in accordance with the valuations placed upon the railway company's property for the year 1925, which tax the company had paid in part without objection had paid in part under protest, and had refused to pay in part, making the claim that the part of the tax paid under protest and the part of the tax left unpaid was illegal and void. The relief asked was that the court determine the validity of the tax claimed to be illegal and void, and enter such judgment as should be just and equitable in the premises. Each of the several answers was accompanied by a motion, supported by affidavit, asking that the court change the venue of the action to the court of the respective moving county.

The answers and motions were served upon the railway company, whereupon the company appeared and moved to dismiss the proceedings in their entirety. The motion was supported by an affidavit to the effect that the plaintiff had never perfected its action by the issuance and service of a summons on the defendants; that it had long since abandoned its action, a fact well known to the counsel for the respective counties at the time of their appearance therein; that it had subsequent to the filing of the complaint, but prior to the time the defendants answered, begun an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeking the same relief against the defendants that it sought by its complaint in the state court; that it had caused process to be issued out of the United States Court and served upon each of the defendants, and that the action was then pending therein.

The motions for change of venue and the motion to dismiss were brought on for hearing at the same time before the state court. The court did not pass directly upon the motions to change the venue, but granted the motion to dismiss. The counties appeal from the order and judgment of dismissal.

The appellants first contend that the court committed error in failing to pass upon their motions for change of venue before passing upon the respondent's motion to dismiss. As to this, it is a sufficient answer to say that the order of dismissal was in effect a denial of the motions, and may be and is so treated by the parties.

Nor was there error in denying the motions. If the cause of action stated in the complaint was an action which could be prosecuted as a single action, the motions were rightly denied, as a single action can hardly be transferred to 23 separate and distinct jurisdictions at one and the same time. Moreover, the county of Thurston, the county in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • City of Jackson v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1940
    ... ... Lord, 9 Wall. 409, 19 L.Ed. 704 ... There ... does not appear to be any case directly in point on this ... subject in the State of Mississippi. The common law rule was ... that a municipality could not be sued outside of its ... bailiwick or county. The venue of suits ... 89, 276 ... S.W. 662; Hunt v. Pownal, 9 Vt. 411; State ex ... rel. King County v. Superior Ct., 104 Wash. 268, 176 ... Pac. 352; Northern P. R. Co. v. State, 144 Wash ... 505, 258 P. 482; Oklahoma City v. District Court, 32 ... P.2d 318, 93 A. L. R. 489, and note page 506 ... ...
  • Miles v. Chinto Min. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 1944
    ... ... While ... the summons and complaint were titled 'In the Superior ... Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of ... Stevens,' no action was commenced in that county in ... contemplation of Rem.Rev.Stat. § 220 ... Nida, ... 60 Wash. 619, 111 P. 1049; City Sash & Door Co. v ... Bunn, 90 Wash. 669, 156 P. 854, Ann.Cas.1918B, 31; ... Northern Pac. R. Co. v. State, 144 Wash. 505, 258 P ... 482; State ex rel. Dahl v. Superior Court, 13 ... Wash.2d 626, 126 P.2d 199 ... ...
  • Dolan v. Baldridge
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1931
    ... ... On October 14, ... 1930, defendant husband demurred to the complaint on the ... grounds that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to ... constitute a cause of action against him; and that the action ... 'was not commenced and service made upon said ... 'There ... was, therefore, no action actively pending at the time the ... defendants appeared.' Northern Pacific R. Co. v ... State, 144 Wash. 505, 258 P. 482, 483 ... We ... cannot say on the record Before us that the ... ...
  • Bd. of Com'Rs of Kiowa Cnty. v. Kiowa Nat. Bank of Snyder
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1929
    ...176 P. 352. See, also, the later cases of Howe v. Whitman County, 120 Wash. 247, 206 P. 968, 212 P. 164, and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. State, 144 Wash. 505, 258 P. 482. The general law of venue in that state (1 Rem. C. S. Wash. 1922, page 262, chapter 5, title 2), in substance, is sim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT