State v. Snohomish County

Citation71 Wash. 320,128 P. 667
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Decision Date16 December 1912
PartiesSTATE v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY et al.

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black Judge.

Action by the State against Snohomish County and another. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., and S. H. Kelleran, Asst Atty. Gen., for the state.

ELLIS J.

This action was brought by the state of Washington for the cancellation of certain tax certificates upon, and to quiet its title to, lands purchased by it as a site for the Washington State Reformatory. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the state purchased a quarter section of land in Snohomish county on May 8, 1907, and two other quarter sections on August 9, 1907; that at all times since the purchase the state has been in possession of these lands, using them for the purposes of the reformatory; and that on July 1, 1909, the county treasurer of Snohomish county issued severally three certificates of delinquency to the defendant Fred Everett for the delinquent taxes against each quarter section for the years 1907 and 1908. The defendant Snohomish county interposed a demurrer to the complaint. By stipulation it was agreed that the complaint stated a cause of action in relation to the taxes for the year 1908, and that the demurrer should be treated as directed to the complaint only as referred to the taxes for the year 1907. Upon this stipulation the demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff elected to stand upon its complaint, and the cause was dismissed. The state appealed.

The single question for our determination is this: Can real estate, in private ownership on March 1, 1907, but in public ownership when the taxes for that year were levied, be subjected to the payment of such taxes? It is a general rule grounded in public policy that, since the power of taxation is a necessary attribute of sovereignty, the general tax laws of the state are presumed to operate upon private, not public, property in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary. It is declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 173, 174, 6 S.Ct. 670, 682 (29 L.Ed. 845), upon copious authority, that: 'GENERAL TAX ACTS OF A STATE ARE NEVER, WithOut the clearest words, held to include its own property, or that of its municipal corporations, although not in terms exempted from taxation. Buckley v. Osburn, 8 Ohio, 180, 187; Piper v. Singer, 4 Serg. & R. [Pa.] 354; Directors of the Poor v. School Directors, 42 Pa. 21; People v. Doe, 36 Cal. 220; Worcester County v. Worcester, 116 Mass. 193 ; Trustees of Public Schools v. Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667; Rochester v. Rush, 80 N.Y. 302; State v. Hartford, 50 Conn. 89 ; Gachet v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 So. 348; 1 Desty on Taxation, p. 48.' But we are not relegated solely to this general principle. It is the public policy of this state, as declared both by constitutional provision and by statutory enactment, that property belonging to the nation, state, any school district, county or municipal corporation, shall be exempt from taxation. State Const. art. 7,§ 2; Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9098. This being premised, let us examine the statute prescribing the lien for taxes in the light of the general process of taxation in order to determine whether, either expressly or by implication, the taxes for 1907 ever became a lien upon the property in question. The statute declaring the lien is as follows: 'The taxes assessed upon real property shall be a lien thereon from and including the 1st day of March in the year in which they are levied until the same are paid, but as between a grantor and grantee such lien shall not attach until the first Monday of February of the succeeding year. The taxes assessed upon personal property shall be a lien upon all the real and personal property of the person assessed from and after the date upon which such assessment is made, and no sale or transfer of either real or personal property shall in any way affect the lien for such taxes upon such property.' Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9235. It will be noted that this section contemplates a levy as well as an assessment in according the lien for a real estate tax, while as to personal property taxes the word 'assessment' alone is used. It will also be noted that this section does not expressly nor by necessary implication authorize a lien for taxes upon state property, at any time nor upon any condition. Such a lien can therefore be sustained only upon the theory that it attached as a complete and subsisting lien prior to the passing of the property into public ownership. The attachment of the lien here provided for, as and from March 1st in the year of the levy, presupposes that a valid levy as affecting the particular property can and will be made by following the general taxation law developing a valid tax.

As pointed out by Judge Donworth in United States v. Pierce County (D. C.) 193 F. 529, an examination of the many sections of that law makes it clear that March 1st is arbitrarily taken as the beginning of the taxation year. The process of taxation is initiated on that day by the assessor then beginning the valuation of all property in the county, fixing the valuation of each property as of that date. The work of valuation necessarily covers a considerable period of time. As the next step in the process, the board of equalization meeting in August revises the assessment as made by the assessor. Thereafter in September, and as another step in the process, the corporate authorities of the cities, towns, and school districts estimate the amount of revenue needed for their respective uses, and finally, as the last step in the process of taxation, the board of county commissioners and other taxing authorities in October levy the tax in specific sums.

Then for the first time the concept of a tax is fully realized. The fact that the lien of the tax so created is by relation attached to specific property as of the date of the initiation of the process in March 1st cannot do away with the necessity of pursuing the whole statutory proceeding before any tax is created so as to attach as a lien as of that or any date. While the state has power, for the purposes of the lien, to treat the entire proceeding as having been taken at any given time, that fact does not do away with the necessity of any step in the proceeding. It seems self-evident that there can be no valid or effective lien for a tax until there is a valid tax in some specific amount. 'For, in the nature of things, no tax or assessment can exist so as to become a lien or incumbrance upon real estate until the amount thereof is ascertained and determined.' Black on Tax Titles (2d Ed.) § 189. 'The mere fact that the property owned on the 1st day of January became liable to taxes for that fiscal year would not avail for the purpose of taxation without an assessment and levy. Taxes not assessed or levied can never become an effectual lien.' Bannon v. Burnes (C. C.) 39 F. 892, 898. 'There can be no real or effective lien until the amount of the taxes is ascertained and assessed. * * * Under such provisions of law, when the rate of taxes is fixed and the amount determined and levied, the lien for such amount relates back and attaches as of the date specified in the statute.' Territory of Arizona v. Perrin, 9 Ariz. 316, 320, 83 P. 361, 362; Gillmor v. Dale, 27 Utah, 372, 75 P. 932.

Obviously the doctrine of relation presupposes a valid creation. It seems equally plain that the creation of a valid tax implies the existence of a susceptible subject of taxation at every stage of the process of such creation. Since, on general principles of public policy and by both constitutional declaration and statutory enactment, lands while held in public ownership are exempt from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1941
    ...own property, or that of its municipal corporations, although not in terms exempted from taxation." This is quoted in State v. Snohomash County, 71 Wash. 320, 128 P. 667, which held that public policy supports the conclusion general tax laws are presumed to operate upon private, not public ......
  • State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann, 36994.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1941
    ...Brocklin v. State, 117 U.S. 151, 6 Sup. Ct. 670, 29 L. Ed. 845; Laret Inv. Co. v. Dickmann, 134 S.W. (2d) 65; State v. Snokomish County, 71 Wash. 320, 128 Pac. 667; Gachet v. New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 813, 27 So. 348. (4) In acquiring property a municipality acquires it free from existing ta......
  • First Nat. Bank of St. Joseph v. Buchanan County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1947
    ... ... Joseph, Missouri, a Corporation, the First Trust Company of St. Joseph, Missouri, a Corporation, the Farmers State Bank of Inza, a Corporation, Mechanics Bank of St. Joseph, Missouri, a Corporation, the Drovers And Merchants Bank of St. Joseph, Missouri, a ... Little River Drain. Dist., 325 Mo. 348, ... 28 S.W.2d 650; State ex rel. v. Childress, 345 Mo ... 495, 134 S.W.2d 136; State v. Snohomish County, 71 ... Wash. 320, 128 P. 667; United States v. Certain ... Land, 29 F.Supp. 92; State ex rel. Hinson v ... Nickerson, 156 N.W. 1039; ... ...
  • City of Long Beach v. Aistrup
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1958
    ...222; Milmar Estate, Inc., v. Borough of Fort Lee, 3l N.J.Super. 241, 115 A.2d 592; Annotation, 45 A.L.R.2d 522, 527.2 State v. Snohomish County, 71 Wash. 320, 128 P. 667; City of Portland v. Multnomah County, 135 Or. 469, 296 P. 48, 49, overruled in City of Salem v. Marion County, 171 Or. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT