Pierce County v. Merrill

• Decision Date: 29 March 1898
• Citation: Pierce County v. Merrill, 19 Wash. 175, 52 P. 854 (Wash. 1898)
• Parties: PIERCE COUNTY ET AL. v. MERRILL ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

52 P. 854

19 Wash. 175

PIERCE COUNTY ET AL. v. MERRILL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 29, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Thomas Carroll, Judge.

Suit by Pierce county and another against E. C. Merrill, George L Rose, and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendant Rose appeals. Reversed.

H. G Rowland and John W. Blake, for appellant.

A. R. Titlow, Pros. Atty., for respondents.

REAVIS J.

Suit in equity by respondents to restrain removal from the county of Pierce of certain personal property on which the county claimed a lien for taxes for the year 1896. Taxes for the years 1893-95 are also due, for which taxes the county had a lien. The defendants were nonresidents of the state, and the defendant Rose was about to remove from the state the goods on which the county claimed a lien for the taxes of the year 1896 before the same became due. The court enjoined the removal of the goods, and appointed a keeper or receiver to take charge of the same pending litigation, or the further order of the court. After the appointment of the receiver the defendant Rose paid the county treasurer the principal for the taxes of the year 1896, but no costs of the action. Respondents dismissed their claim for the taxes for the years 1893-95. The court ordered sufficient of the property sold to pay the costs incurred, and entered judgment accordingly, adjudging costs against defendant, which judgment was carried into effect by the sale of sufficient of the goods to pay the costs. From this judgment and decree defendant Rose appeals.

The defendant Rose, on his first appearance in court, filed a demurrer to the complaint, assigning that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or the cause of action, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant Rose. The demurrer was overruled, and Rose filed his answer. Upon the trial the findings of fact filed in the superior court which are material to the consideration of the cause here were that the defendant Rose was during the entire year of 1896 the owner of personal property situated in Pierce county, and that the board of county commissioners duly levied a tax upon all the assessed value of property within the county, and that the taxes were duly assessed and carried on the assessment rolls; there was assessed against defendant for taxes in the year 1896 the sum of $18; that, at the time of the commencement of the action, defendant Rose was about to remove the goods on which the taxes were levied from their then location, and take them out of the state, and that the defendant Rose was a nonresident of the state; that, after the commencement of the action, defendant Rose paid the taxes for the year 1896, amounting to $18, but refused to pay the costs of the action. No exceptions were taken to the findings of fact. The suit was commenced on the 1st day of March, 1897. Taxes for the year 1896 did not become delinquent until the 31st day of May, 1897. They became a lien on the personal property on the 1st day of January, 1897. Laws 1895, p. 513, § 14; Id. p. 520 § 21. The right to demand payment and to enforce the collection of taxes accrued after the 1st day of ...