Templeton v. Pierce County

• Decision Date: 29 June 1901
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TEMPLETON v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.

65 P. 553

25 Wash. 377

TEMPLETON v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 29, 1901

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; J. A. Williamson, Judge.

Suit by Ella A. Templeton against Pierce county and others for relief against excessive taxation. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

F Campbell, for appellants.

John P Hartman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in which it is alleged that certain property known as the 'Meeker Homestead,' in Puyallup, Pierce county, was listed on the tax rolls of Pierce county for the year 1894 at $10,240, being $5,240 in excess of its true value; for the years 1895 and 1896 at $10,500, being $5,500 in excess of its true value; for the years 1897 and 1898 at $8,700, being $3,700 in excess of its ture value. The valuation is alleged to have been made by the assessor. There was no application to the board of equalization for a reduction of the assessment. Tender of the amount of taxes claimed to be justly due is pleaded. The prayer is that the court decree the amount of taxes the plaintiff should equitably pay, and for a cancellation of the excess, and such relief as equity should demand. The finding of the court is to the effect that for the years 1894, 1895 and 1896 the property 'was illegally and unjustly listed and valued upon the tax rolls' at $10,500, which was $5,000 in excess of the true value; that for the years 1897 and 1898 the property 'was illegally and unjustly listed and valued upon the tax rolls at the sum of $8,700, which was $3,200 in excess of the true value.' The court placed the value of the property at $5,500 for each year, and decreed a payment of taxes on that basis. The mere overvaluation of property by the assessor, if he acts in good faith, and in the honest exercise of his judgment, furnishes no ground for relief in equity. For excessive assessments, unless fraud is established by the proof, or may be presumed from the circumstances, equity furnishes no relief, and the remedy must be such as the statute has given. Cooley, Tax'n 775; 2 Desty, Tax'n, 655. This is the general rule, and we think the decisions of this court are in harmony with the same. In Andrews v. King County, 1 Wash. 56, 23 P 409, 22 Am. St. Rep. 136, the court says: 'We think the uniform ruling of the higher courts has been that, while equity will not interfere to correct mere mistakes or inadvertences, or to contravene or set aside the judgments of assessors or boards of equalization in relation to values, it will interfere when the officers fraudulently, capriciously, or tyrannically refuse to exercise their judgment by adopting a rule or system of valuation designed to operate unequally, and to violate a fundamental principle of the constitution.' In the case of Whatcom County v. Fairhaven Land Co., 7 Wash. 102, 34 P. 563, it seems to have been conceded that property of the actual value of $193,451 was assessed at $409,081. There was also evidence tending to show that the assessor had set down arbitrarily values in his office, without examination, inquiry, or knowledge of the condition, situation, or circumstance of the subject-matter. The assessment was a great deal higher proportionately than the valuation of other similar property in the county. While the court in that case said that there was not evidence to establish constructive fraud, and decided the case as 'one of palpably excessive overvaluation,' yet the facts of the case disclose that the arbitrary acts of the assessor, and the disproportionate valuation of the property, as well as the palpably excessive overvaluation, were the considerations moving the court to hold the assessment illegal. From the facts in the case, as disclosed in the opinion, fraud on the part of the assessor might have been inferred, although the court said there was not sufficient evidence to establish constructive fraud. The question as to the illegality of the assessment arose in a direct proceeding to enforce the collection of the tax. Benn v. Chehalis County, 11 Wash. 135, 39 P. 365, was a case decided on a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleged that the assessor had valued the property without viewing it; that the value placed upon it was double the actual value. Assessing property without any knowledge of its value would be an arbitrary assessment, and it is clear from the opinion that the court considered the assessment for that reason illegal. That case was decided on the facts conceded by the demurrer. In Waterworks v. Gelbach, 16 Wash. 482, 48 P. 251, the board of equalization increased the assessed valuation. The court says: 'It is a well-known fact that there is often a wide difference of opinion as to the values of property among persons acting honestly and endeavoring to get at the true value, and, as this question must be settled somewhere, the law has reposed it in the board of equalization, and made their action final. * * * It may be that there can be such action on the part of the board, fraudulent or otherwise,--such as refusing to hear testimony or depriving plaintiff of notice, etc.,--as would warrant the interference of the courts in some manner. But there can be none where the sole question presented is whether or not the board acted under an honest belief in placing a value upon the property, for this is a matter that would not be susceptible of proof. The fact...