Rathbun v. Thurston County

• Citation: 27 P. 448,2 Wash. 564
• Parties: RATHBUN v. THURSTON COUNTY. [1]
• Decision Date: 15 July 1891
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

27 P. 448

2 Wash. 564

RATHBUN v. THURSTON COUNTY. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

July 15, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; MASON, Judge.

Action by J. C. Rathbun against Thurston county on contract for publishing a tax-list. Trial to the court. Judgment for plaintiff for part of his claim, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J C. Rathbun, for appellant.

W J. Melroy, for respondent.

ANDERS, C.J.

This action was tried in the court below upon a written stipulation of facts, from which it appears that appellant who was the publisher of a newspaper, advertised the delinquent tax-list of the county for the year 1889 for an agreed compensation of 75 cents for each separate description of real estate for the first insertion, and 25 cents for each subsequent insertion. It is conceded that the advertising was done in accordance with law and the agreement of the parties but, on settlement with the county commissioners for the work done, a controversy arose over the meaning of the expression "each separate description of real estate." The plaintiff contended that a separate description of real estate is a description of an individual lot, tract, or parcel of land appearing upon the assessment roll, without respect to the number of such individual lots, tracts, or parcels that may have been assessed to a single owner notwithstanding the tax levied upon all such parcels may have been carried out in total, and placed opposite the last item in the list. On the contrary, the commissioners claimed that such separate description embraces all the lots, tracts, and parcels of land assessed to a single owner, where the valuation thereof is carried out in total, and the tax levied against the whole is placed opposite the last item in the list instead of a separate assessment and valuation being made for each such lot, tract, or parcel of land. According to the contention of plaintiff he is entitled to be paid the contract price for publishing 564 separate descriptions, but according to the view of defendant he is only entitled to compensation for advertising 270 of such descriptions, and for which the county paid him.

The court below found as facts that the delinquent tax list published by plaintiff contained 330 separate descriptions and that there was still due the plaintiff from defendant the sum of $90, for which sum judgment was duly rendered for plaintiff. The latter brings the case here, and asks ...