State v. Headlee
| Citation | 60 P. 126,22 Wash. 126 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1900 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROSS et al., County Commissioners, v. HEADLEE, County Auditor. |
Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid, Judge.
Application for mandamus by the state, on the relation of W. M. Ross and others, as county commissioners of Snohomish county, to compel T. E. Headlee, as county auditor, to extend a tax levy. From a judgment in favor of relators, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Whitney & Headlee, for appellant.
W. P Bell and Cooley & Horan, for respondents.
On the 4th day of October, 1899, the county commissioners of Snohomish county made a levy of taxes for the ensuing year as required by law. Afterwards it appeared to the commissioners that the levy made was larger than was necessary to meet the financial requirements of the county for the ensuing year, and they made an order finding and declaring that the said levy of October was in excess of the needs of the county, and reduced the levy four mills on the dollar, making a change in the aggregate of about $30,000, and ordered the auditor to extend this levy upon the tax rolls as the true levy for the year 1899. The auditor refusing to so extend the levy, this proceeding was brought to compel him to do so, and a peremptory writ of mandate was asked for with that end in view. A demurrer was interposed to the petition, which was overruled. Answer was filed, and stipulation was entered into showing the facts in the case, and the court found that the last levy made by the board of county commissioners was a legal levy, and that the relators were entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus, as prayed for in their petition. Judgment was entered in accordance with the findings of the court, and from such judgment this appeal is taken.
We do not think there is anything in the contention of the appellant that the petition contains no averments that the questions of construction and interpretation of the revenue laws of 1897, involved here, had been submitted to the state auditor for his decision, nor in the other preliminary suggestion, that the board of county commissioners had no legal capacity to institute this proceeding. It is true, as is said by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the county is a body corporate, and the commissioners are its fiscal agents, through whom it acts, and that they are the trustees and directors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Caruthers
...522; Wolfe v. State, 90 Ind. 16; People v. Kingston, 101 N. Y. 82, 4 N.E. 348; Jernigan v. Finley, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S.W. 24; State v. Headlee, 22 Wash. 126, 60 P. 126. ¶5 Whilst we incline to the view that this action should have been brought in the name of the state, on the relation of the ......
-
Davis v. Caruthers
......Dig. vol. 33, Mandamus, §. 90.]. . . Such. action may be brought in the name of the state, on the. relation of the county judge, or any other proper party. . . [Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 33, ...522; Wolfe v. State, 90 Ind. 16; People v. Kingston, 101 N.Y. 82, 4 N.E. 348; Jernigan v. Finley, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S.W. 24; State v. Headlee, 22 Wash. 126, 60 P. 126. Whilst we incline to. the view that this action should have been brought in the. name of the state, on the relation of ......
-
State v. McQuade
......Other cases from this. court bearing[36 Wash. 586] more or less strongly upon the. question are the following: State ex rel. King v. Trimbell, 12 Wash. 440, 41 P. 183; State ex rel. Starrett v. James, 14 Wash. 82, 44 P. 116; State ex. rel. Sheehan v. Headlee,. [79 P. 209.] . 17 Wash. 637, 50 P. 493; State ex rel. Weinberg v. Pacific B. & M. Co., 21 Wash. 451, 58 P. 584, 47 L. R. A. 208; State ex rel. Ross v. Headlee, 22 Wash. 126,. 60 P. 126; State ex rel. Cann v. Moore, 23 Wash. 115, 62 P. 441; Quaker City Nat. Bank ......
-
City Council of City and County of Denver v. Board of Com'rs of Adams County
...... . . Prior. of the year 1901, what may be properly designated as old. Arapahoe county was geographically the same as when our state. Constitution was adopted. At the regular session of the. Thirteenth General Assembly, held in that year, there was. before that body a general ... has been done. People v. Salomon, 54 Ill. 39; Wartman v. Wartman, Fed. Cas. No. 17,210; State v. Headlee, 22 Wash. 126, 60 P. 126; Sharpe v. Engle, 2 Okl. 624, 39 P. 384;. County Com'rs v. Melvin, 89 Md. 37, 42 A. 910. . . 2. The. other ......