Seattle & Puget Sound Packing Co. v. City of Seattle

• Citation: 97 P. 1093,51 Wash. 49
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 13 November 1908
• Parties: SEATTLE & PUGET SOUND PACKING CO. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

97 P. 1093

51 Wash. 49

SEATTLE & PUGET SOUND PACKING CO. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 13, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Action by the Seattle & Puget Sound Packing Company against the city of Seattle and another. From a judgment of dismissal entered on sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Charles A. Riddle, Graves, Palmer & Murphy, and Alexander & Bundy for appellant.

Howard D. Hughes, Scott Calhoun, and James E. Bradford, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

This action was instituted to cancel and annul a local improvement assessment imposed by the city of Seattle on certain property owned by the appellant and to remove a cloud. A demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained, and, from the order of dismissal, the present appeal is prosecuted.

The assessment complained of is invalid under the decision of this court in Schuchard v. City of Seattle, and the judgment appealed from must be reversed on the authority of that case unless the appellant is estopped to deny the validity of the assessment by reason of its failure to file written objections thereto before the city council as required by the act of March 16, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 240). Section 2 of that act provides that 'whenever any assessment roll for local improvements shall have been prepared as provided by law, charter or ordinance of any city of the first class, and such assessment roll shall have been confirmed by the council or legislative body of such city after due and proper notice to the property owner, as provided by law, charter or ordinance, so that said owners of property may have a reasonable opportunity to object to or protest against any assessment, the regularity, and correctness of the proceedings to order said improvement, and the regularity, validity and correctness of said assessment cannot in any manner be contested or questioned in any proceeding whatsoever by any person not filing written objections to such roll, prior to the same being confirmed as aforesaid, and at such time or times as may be prescribed by charter or ordinance. * * *' Under the above and similar enactments we have repeatedly held that all objections to the regularity of the proceedings of the council not going to the jurisdiction of that body are foreclosed by failure to appear and file written objections to the proposed assessment at the time and in the manner provided by charter or ordinance. New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co., 16 Wash. 131, 47 P. 236; Tumwater v. Pix, 18 Wash. 153, 51 P. 353; New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co., 18 Wash. 181, 51 P. 360; Northwestern & Pacific, etc., Bank v. Spokane, 18 Wash. 456, 51 P. 1070; Heath v. McCrea, 20 Wash. 342, 55 P. 432; Annie Wright Seminary v. Tacoma, 23 Wash. 109, 62 P. 444; McNamee v. Tacoma, 24 Wash. 591, 64 P. 791; Potter v. Whatcom, 25 Wash. 207, 65 P. 197; Lewis v. Seattle, 28 Wash. 639, 69 P. 393; Young v. Tacoma, 31 Wash. 153, 71 P. 742; Ferry v. Tacoma, 34 Wash. 652, 76 P. 277; Alexander v. Tacoma, 35 Wash. 366, 77 P. 686; Aberdeen v. Lucas, 37 Wash. 190, 79 P. 632; Renard v. Spokane, 93 P. 517. At the same time it is conceded in all these cases that objections going to the jurisdiction of the city council are not waived. Potter v. Whatcom, supra; Lewis v. Seattle, supra; Alexander v. Tacoma, supra. On the other hand, it has been held repeatedly, and we think correctly, that, when an attempt is made to assess or levy a tax or assessment on property which is by law exempt from assessment or taxation, the property owner is not required to appear before the assessing or taxing officers, but may rest on his statutory...