Patterson v. Toler

• Decision Date: 18 January 1913
• Citation: 129 P. 107,71 Wash. 535
• Parties: PATTERSON v. TOLER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

129 P. 107

71 Wash. 535

PATTERSON v. TOLER.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 18, 1913

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; Lester Still Judge.

Action by Harriet E. Patterson against Ralph M. Toler. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Geo Venable Smith, of Port Angeles, and T. H. Patterson, of Seattle, for appellant.

Cochran & Thorp, of Port Angeles, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

In 1907 the county of Clallam, in a general tax foreclosure proceeding, sold for delinquent taxes certain lots and parcels of land situated in that county now claimed by the appellant. This action was instituted by her to set aside the foreclosure proceedings and the deed executed thereunder as clouds upon her title. A demurrer was interposed and sustained to the complaint, and, on the appellant's refusing to plead further, a judgment of dismissal and for costs was entered against her. This appeal followed. In the complaint it is alleged that for the years 1900 to 1905 inclusive, the property in question appeared upon the assessment rolls as the property of Warren J. Hoag, and for the years 1906 and 1907 it appeared as the property of W. J. Hoag. In the certificate of delinquency issued to the county, which furnished the foundation for the foreclosure proceeding, the property was shown as the property of W. G. Hoag, and in the published summons the name of W. G. Hoag followed the description of the property as the owner thereof; the property being during all of such times the property of Warren J. Hoag.

It was the failure to insert in the published summons either the name of the person shown on the assessment roll to be the owner of the property, or the name of the actual owner thereof, that is thought to be so far fatal to the foreclosure proceedings as to render the same void. The appellant cites a number of cases from this court to sustain her contention to the effect that it is necessary to a valid foreclosure for delinquent taxes that the summons be addressed to the actual owner of the property or to the person shown on the assessment roll to be such owner. But the cases cited are all cases where the certificate of delinquency was issued to and foreclosed by a private individual; none of them having reference to a general foreclosure of delinquency certificates brought by the county on certificates issued to the county. In the latter class of cases a different rule obtains; the summons being sufficient in such cases if the property itself is properly described notwithstanding a mistake may be made in the name of the person shown to be the owner. This is made clear by the case of Noble v. Aune, 50 Wash. 73, 96 P. 688, where we said: 'It is contended by appellants that the original tax proceeding was invalid for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as in the foreclosure proceedings the name of the owner was given as 'Henry Acenie' instead of 'Henry Aune,' as it had appeared in the tax roll for some of the years for...