Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Tacoma

• Decision Date: 31 January 1905
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. CITY OF TACOMA et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 306

36 Wash. 656

PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. CITY OF TACOMA et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 31, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. H. Snell, Judge.

Action by the Pennsylvania Company against the city of Tacoma and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Fogg &amp Fogg, for appellant.

O. G Ellis and J. J. Anderson, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

This is an action to quiet title. The following is a brief statement of the facts: The lots in controversy are situate within the corporate limits of the city of Tacoma. Taxes were levied against them for state and county purposes for the year 1895 and prior years. In 1900 a certificate of delinquency for the taxes of 1895 and prior years was issued to Pierce county by its county treasurer. In 1901 and 1902 this certificate of delinquency was foreclosed, the lots sold, and a deed therefor executed to the county. The county thereafter conveyed the lots to the plaintiff in this action. On the 25th day of July, 1899, the city of Tacoma, by ordinance, levied an assessment on these lots and other property for a local improvement. The assessment was made payable in installments on the 20th day of November, 1900 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904, respectively. Under the terms of the ordinance, the assessment thus levied was declared to be a lien on the property within the assessment district from the date of the ordinance until the assessment was paid. No question is raised as to the regularity of any of these proceedings, except that the city of Tacoma was not made a party to the proceeding to foreclose the delinquency certificate. The court below decided that the tax foreclosure cut off the lien of the local improvement assessment in so far as the installments had matured at the time of the foreclosure, but that such lien was not affected by the foreclosure in so far as the installments had not then matured. The correctness of this ruling is the only question presented on this appeal.

We have so often decided that the lien for general taxes is paramount to all other claims and liens, including the lien of assessments for local improvements, that the question is no longer an open one in this court. McMillan v Tacoma, 26 Wash. 358, 67 P. 68; Keene v. Seattle, 31 Wash. 202, 71 P. 769; State ex rel. Craver v. McConnaughey, 31 Wash. 207, 71 P. 770; Ballard v. Way, 34 Wash. 116, 74 P. 1067. The fact that the local improvement...