State v. Okanogan County
Decision Date | 13 August 1929 |
Docket Number | 21875. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HUNT v. OKANOGAN COUNTY et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Okanogan County; W. O. Parr, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of Ward Hunt against Okanogan County and others. From an adverse judgment relator appeals. Reversed, with directions.
L. B Donley, of Olympia, Wentz & Bailey, of Colville, and Ward Hunt, of Seattle, for appellant.
H. A. Davis, of Okanogan, and Marion Edwards, of Seattle, for respondents.
This is, in form, a statutory mandamus proceeding instituted in the superior court for Okanogan county, wherein the relator, Ward Hunt, seeks a judgment of the superior court for that county in the form of a writ of mandate directing the commissioners of the county to allow his claim of compensation for services rendered to it, directing the issuance of a warrant therefor by the auditor of the county, when so allowed, and directing the treasurer of the county to pay such warrant, when so issued. The claim of the relator against the county is for services commenced and rendered to it by his assignor in pursuance of his contract with the county and completed by relator in pursuance of an assignment of that contract to him, with the approval of the county commissioners, by which he succeeded to all of the rights of his assignor and assumed all of the employment obligations of service contracted to be rendered by his assignor. The service in question, in brief, was the compilation and preparation of a large amount of data and of argument, and presentation thereof to the Department of the Interior, and in turn to Congress, in support of the claim of Okanogan county that it is equitably entitled to payment from the United States of a sum equal to the amount of taxes legally chargeable by the county, during the years 1901 to 1925, inclusive, against allotted Indian lands within the county, had such lands not been exempt by Congress from taxation during those years. Trial upon the merits as a civil action in the superior court sitting without a jury, no jury being demanded by either party, resulted in findings and judgment denying to the relator any recovery, from which he has appealed to this court.
In the year 1872 there was, by executive order of the President of the United States, set apart as a reservation for the Indians a large tract of land lying in the northeasterly portion of the territory, now state, of Washington. In the year 1888 Okanogan county was created by act of the Legislature of the territory of Washington (Laws of Territory 1887-88, p. 70). A large portion of the lands so set aside as a reservation for the Indians lies within the boundary of Okanogan county so created and as existing territorially up to the present time. In June, 1892, an act of Congress was passed and became effective, reading, in so far as need be here noticed, as follows:
Under the provisions of that act of Congress, some 220 allotments of land within the portion of the reservation so restored to the public domain were selected by and awarded to individual Indians in severalty, and accordingly by the United States conveyed to the several allottees, which conveyances were attended by such restrictions under this and other acts of Congress as prevented the county taxing authorities from levying taxes upon the lands so allotted and conveyed to the Indians, during the period here in question. The opening to settlement by allotment to the Indians in severalty, and otherwise as provided by general laws to other citizens, caused that portion of the reservation to be brought under the jurisdiction of the local civil government of the state and county. This jurisdiction was then assumed by the county authorities, extending over that territory the usual benefits of civil government, such as police and court protection of all persons and property therein, including the persons and property of the Indian allottees, the building and maintaining of roads, the establishment and maintenance of public schools, etc. This, it is plain, the county did, and has continued to do up to the present time, without receiving any tax contribution from the allotted Indian lands. This, in substance, constitutes the equitable and moral foundation of the county's claim against the United States.
Clair Hunt is a civil engineer of long experience, and he is also a man of extensive experience in Indian affairs, especially in the allotment of Indian lands in severalty and in his acquaintance with the laws of the United States relating thereto. In March, 1920, the commissioners of Okanogan county contemplated making a claim against the United States, through the Department of the Interior, and in turn to Congress, for an appropriation, if necessary, for payment to the county of money from the United States in lieu of taxes which would have been paid the county upon the allotted Indian lands in question had they not been exempt from taxation. Looking to that end, an employment contract was entered into between the county and Clair Hunt, reading, in so far as need be here noticed, as follows:
'Now, therefore, the said Okanogan County, party of the first part, acting by and through its duly qualified Board of County Commissioners in meeting assembled, for and in consideration of the promises and of the covenants and agreements of the party of the second part hereinafter contained, does hereby engage and employ said party of the second part to act for and represent said Okanogan County in recovering or procuring of and from the United States Government reimbursement for the moneys expended as aforesaid in whole or in part, and in recovering and procuring from the said United States Government any and all moneys justly due or to become due Okanogan County on account of said allotted Indians, Indian lands, or in lieu of taxes on said allotted Indian lands, or any other sums so recovered on any account whatsoever by reason of such allotted lands.
'And the said party of the first part further promises and agrees to pay and compensate the said party of the second part for and on account of said services to be rendered by him as aforesaid fifty per cent of all moneys which may be recovered as reimbursement for years preceding 1926 by the said party of the second part or through or on account of his efforts whether said moneys are procured by appropriation of Congress or otherwise; and the party of the first part does hereby further agree that the party of the second part shall have all necessary aid and assistance of the officers and employees of the said Okanogan County in procuring the necessary data and information in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacobsen v. Oliver
... ... Truitt, George Alexander Lehner, U.S. Department of State", Washington, DC, for Defendants ... PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge ... \xC2" ... See, e.g., Brown II, 104 F.2d at 229; State v. Okanogan County, 153 Wash. 399, 280 P. 31, 36-37 (1929); cf. Le John Mfg. Co. v. Webb, 222 F.2d at 51-52 ... ...
-
Hays v. City of Kalamazoo
... ... 54. Supreme Court of Michigan. Jan. 6, 1947 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County; Earl C. pugsley, judge. Suit in equity by Charles B. Hays against the City of Kalamazoo and the ... that such proposed expenditure was not authorized under the Constitution, the statutes of the State, or the city charter. Plaintiff asked that the court declare such expenditure to be unauthorized, ... 726;West v. Coos County, 115 Or. 409, 237 P. 961, 40 A.L.R. 1362;State ex rel. Hunt v. Okanogan County, 153 Wash. 399, 280 P. 31, 67 A.L.R. 668. In considering the question before us, we may ... ...
-
State ex rel. Banks v. Drummond
... 187 Wash.2d 157 385 P.3d 769 STATE of Washington EX REL. Gregory M. BANKS, Prosecuting Attorney of Island County, Appellant, v. Susan E. DRUMMOND, and Law Offices of Susan Elizabeth Drummond, PLLC; and Island County Board of Commissioners, Respondents. No ... Hunt v. Okanogan County , 153 Wash. 399, 421, 280 P. 31 (1929) (restating our holding in McNeil ). If we allowed a county board to enter into contracts for ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bond v. State
... ... 'In every public department, and upon all public works of the state, and of any county thereof, honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines who are veterans of any war of the United States, or of any military campaign for which ... Aberdeen, supra; Washington Security Co. v. State (1941), 9 Wash.2d 197, 114 P.2d 965, 135 A.L.R. 1330; State ex rel. Hunt v. Okanogan County (1929), 153 Wash. 399, 280 P. 31, 67 A.L.R. 668; State ex rel. Brown v. McQuade (1905), 36 Wash. 579, 79 P. 207; State ex rel. Race v. Cranney ... ...