State ex rel. King County Water Dist. No. 22 v. Stacy

• Decision Date: 28 August 1941
• Docket Number: 28398.
• Citation: 116 P.2d 356,10 Wn.2d 248
• Parties: STATE ex rel. KING COUNTY WATER DIST. NO. 22 v. STACY, County Treasurer.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

116 P.2d 356

10 Wn.2d 248

STATE ex rel. KING COUNTY WATER DIST. NO. 22 v. STACY, County Treasurer.

No. 28398.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 28, 1941

Department 1.

Proceeding on an application for writ of mandate by the State of Washington, on the relation of King County Water District No 22, against Ralph S. Stacy, Treasurer of King County Washington. From a decree granting relief prayed, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J Meakim, judge.

B. Gray Warner, Lloyd W. Shorett, and James W. Mifflin, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Weter Roberts & Shefelman and Wayne C. Booth, all of Seattle, for respondent.

STEINERT Justice.

Relator is a water district organized under chapter 161, Laws of 1913, p. 533, since then amended, and now appearing as Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11579 et seq. Pursuant to the provisions of the statute, the water district authorized certain improvements and, for that purpose, established within its territory a local improvement district. On completion of the improvements, assessments were leived upon the property specially benefited.

Thereafter, certain of the real property located within the water district and subject to the foregoing local improvement district assessments was sold at a general tax foreclosure sale, at which King county became the purchaser. Since then, there has been no resale of the property.

The water district, desiring to redeem from such sale the particular parcel of real estate involved in this action, tendered to the county treasurer the face amount of the general taxes against that parcel, together with costs, but without penalty or interest, and demanded of the treasurer a deed to the property. The tender was refused on the alleged ground that the water district had no right to redeem the property. The water district thereupon made application to the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandate to compel the treasurer to accept the tender and to issue a deed. A demurrer to the application and supporting affidavit was overruled, and, the treasurer having refused to plead further, the court entered a decree granting the relief prayed for in the application. The treasurer thereupon appealed.

The sole question involved here is this: Where property subject to local improvement assessments levied by a water district has been sold for general taxes and at the sale the property is bid in by the county, is the water district entitled, at any time Before resale by the county, to redeem the property upon payment of the face amount of the general taxes against it, with costs, but without penalty or interest?

The answer to that question requires consideration of a series of statutes and of several of our former decisions.

Chapter 98, Laws of 1911, p. 441, since then amended, and now appearing as Rem.Rev.Stat. § 9352 [10 Wn.2d 251] et seq. , established a uniform method to be employed by cities and form method to be employed by cities and in levying and collecting special assessments on property specially benefited by such improvements. Section 40 of that act (Rem.Comp.Stat. § 9393), now appearing, in amended form, as Rem.Rev.Stat. § 9393, provided, in part, as follows: 'In any case where any property shall be struck off to or bid in by the county at any sale for general taxes, and such property shall subsequently be sold by the county, the proceeds of such sale shall first be applied to discharge in full the lien or liens for general taxes for which the same was sold, and the remainder, or such portion thereof as may be necessary, shall be paid to the city to discharge all local assessment liens upon such property, and the surplus, if any, shall be distributed among the proper county funds.'

It will be observed that the provision just quoted did not authorize cities and towns to redeem property from sales for general taxes, but merely entitled them to certain proceeds from resales by the county after general tax liens had been discharged.

Chapter 161, Laws of 1913, p. 533, now appearing, in amended form, as Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11579 et seq., authorized the establishment of water districts for the acquisition, operation, and regulation of water supply systems such as that conducted by respondent herein. Section 9 of that act, now appearing, in amended form, as Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 11587, originally contained the following provision: 'That the levying and collection of all public assessments and issuance of bonds hereby authorized shall be in the manner now and hereafter provided by law for the levying and collection of local improvement assessments and the issuance of local improvement bonds by cities of the third class in so far as the same shall not be inconsitent [sic] with the provisions of this act.' (Italics ours.)

At the time of the passage of the 1913 act relative to water districts, there was still no provision authorizing cities and towns to redeem property from sale for general taxes, nor was there any statute conferring that privilege upon water districts. In 1925, however, the legislature enacted chapter 170, Laws of 1925, Ex. Sess., p. 470, now appearing, in amended form, as Rem.Rev.Stat., § 9393, amending § 40 of the act of 1911 (Rem.Comp.Stat., § 9393), quoted above, and conferring upon cities and towns such right of redemption. The 1925 act provided, in part, as follows: 'That in any case where property subject to local improvement assessments, or taken over by a city or town on foreclosure of local improvement assessments, shall have been struck off to or bid in by any county at a sale for general taxes, the city or town levying such assessments may, at any time Before resale by the county, redeem such property from the lien of general taxes upon payment of the face of such taxes with costs without penalty or interest.'

In August, 1927, this court held that the water district act of 1913, chapter 161, Laws of 1913, p. 533, referred to above, was unconstitutional. Drum v. University Place Water District, 144 Wash. 585, 258 P. 505, approved on rehearing, 147 Wash. 699, 266 P. 1056.

In consequence of that decision, the 1929 legislature enacted chapter 114, Laws of 1929, p. 218, now appearing, in amended form, as Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11579 et seq., which, among other things, attempted to validate the organization and existence of such water districts as had been established under the 1913 act; owing to gubernatorial veto of certain sections of the 1929 act, validation of existing water districts was not attained until 1931, under chapter 71, Laws of 1931, p. 222, Rem.Rev.Stat., § 11604. However, § 9 of the 1929 act reenacted the corresponding portion of § 9 of the 1913 act as quoted above, with the exception that the method for levying and collecting public assessments by water districts was designated as being the same as that for levying and collecting local improvement assessments by cities of the first class, rather than that followed by cities of the third class, as had been provided in the original water district act of 1913. That distinction in procedure, however, if of any practical effect, is of no importance here.

The course of legislation thus far reviewed established these two statutory rules: (1) The method adopted for the levying and collection of public assessments by water districts is to be the same as that provided for the levying and collection of local improvement assessments by cities and towns, and (2) where property subject to local improvement assessments by a city or town has been bid in by a county at a sale for general taxes, such city or town is authorized to redeem such property upon the payment of the full amount of such taxes with costs, but without penalty or interest.

Finally in 1939, the legislature amended chapter 114, Laws of 1929, p. 218, supra, by enacting chapter 128, Laws of 1939, p. 362, Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 11587 et seq. Section 1 of the 1939 act, Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.), § 11587, provided, inter alia, 'That the levying, collection and enforcement of all public assessments and issuance of bonds hereby authorized shall be in the manner now and hereafter provided by law for the levying,...