Northwest Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Thurston County

• Decision Date: 18 January 1918
• Docket Number: 14335.
• Citation: 170 P. 125,99 Wash. 564
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: NORTHWEST TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. v. THURSTON COUNTY et al.

170 P. 125

99 Wash. 564

NORTHWEST TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. v. THURSTON COUNTY et al.

No. 14335.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 18, 1918

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John R Mitchell, Judge.

Action by the Northwest Trust & Safe Deposit Company, a corporation as trustee, against Thurston County, a county and municipal corporation of the state of Washington, and Fred W. Stocking as treasurer of said county. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Judgment affirmed.

Frank C. Owings, of Olympia, for appellant.

Troy &amp Sturdevant and George F. Yantis, all of Olympia, for respondents.

MAIN J.

The purpose of this action was to secure a rebate of a portion of the taxes assessed upon the property formerly owned by the Washington Public Service Company, which was the owner of the waterworks system in the city of Olympia. The plaintiff is the trustee for certain mortgage bonds. The trial resulted in a judgment dismissing the action, from which the plaintiff appeals.

The facts may be summarized as follows: The taxes complained of as excessive were for the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. During the time when the taxes were levied, the waterworks plant was owned by the Washington Public Service Company, a corporation. After the taxes for the year 1915 had been levied, the city of Olympia began a condemnation proceeding in the Thurston county superior court for the purpose of acquiring the water plant. The venue of this action was transferred to the superior court of Pierce county, and the trial there resulted in a verdict of the jury fixing the value of the plant in the sum of $88,500. Before the trial, the county treasurer of Thurston county, represented by the prosecuting attorney thereof, was permitted to intervene. The purpose of this intervention was to protect the county in its right to have the taxes assessed for the years above mentioned paid out of the award in the condemnation proceeding. After a judgment had been entered in the latter proceeding, the owner of the plant, the Washington Public Service Company, the Northwest Trust & Safe Deposit Company, as trustee, and others, being dissatisfied with the amount of the award of the jury, prosecuted an appeal to this court. While the appeal was here pending and before a determination thereof, the parties entered into a stipulation to the effect that the judgment of the superior court should be reversed, and that this court should direct the entry of a judgment in the condemnation action in the sum of $102,500. This stipulation was joined in by the prosecuting attorney of Thurston county. In pursuance of the terms of the stipulation and the mandate of this court, a judgment was entered by the superior court in the sum of $102,500. This sum was paid into the registry of the court, and possession of the property was taken by the condemnor. Thurston county, by its lawful officers, placed an assessed valuation upon the personal property of the Washington Public Service Company of $75,000 for the years 1913 and 1914, and $57,500 for the year 1915. These assessments were on the basis of 50 per cent. of the fair market value.

The appellant claims that the fair market value on the 1st days of March, 1913, 1914, [170 P. 126] and 1915 did not exceed $79,706, and that the property, for the purposes of taxation, was of the value of one-half that sum, or $39,853. The amount of the tax, together with the accrued interest, based upon this valuation, was paid to the county treasurer, and the present action instituted for the purpose of canceling the excess.

The respondents claim that the value of the property was $150,000, and that an assessment for one-half this sum, or less, did not require that the property bear an excessive tax.

It is first contended that, since the county treasurer intervened in the condemnation action, and the prosecuting attorney signed the stipulation above referred to, the county cannot now be heard to say that the fair market value of the property, for the years mentioned, exceeded the amount stated in the stipulation; but this contention cannot be sustained. The only purpose of the petition in intervention was to protect the county's rights to have its taxes out of the fund which should be paid into court in the condemnation proceeding. No issue was...