United States v. Pierce County
| Decision Date | 10 February 1912 |
| Docket Number | 1,637. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PIERCE COUNTY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Elmer E. Todd, U.S. Atty.
J. L McMurray and J. T. S. Lyle, for defendants.
This is a suit in equity, brought to cancel and annul a purported tax lien for the state, county, school, and city taxes of the year 1903 on lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in block 1102 of the city of Tacoma, which lots, together with the other four lots in the same block, constitute the site upon which stands the building constructed by the United States for a post office, courthouse, and custom-house in that city, and now used for those purposes. A final hearing has been had on the bill, answer, and an agreed statement of facts. By act of Congress approved June 6, 1902 (32 Stat. 320, c. 1036), an appropriation was made for the acquisition of a site and the construction of a government building at Tacoma. Shortly thereafter negotiations were begun between the Secretary of the Treasury and certain persons controlling this block of land, with the result that the Secretary on December 22 1902, wrote to the parties in interest definitely accepting on certain conditions, their proposition to sell the entire block to the government. Lots 5, 6, 11, and 12 were conveyed to the government by deeds made in January, 1903. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 were conveyed to the government by deeds executed in May, 1903, and recorded in the deed records of the county in July of the same year. For lots 9 and 10 condemnation proceedings were instituted by the government, and all persons having any interest (including Pierce county) were brought into the action as parties respondent. The county made no appearance. The proceedings resulted in a decree of appropriation in favor of the government, rendered July 10, 1903, and recorded in the county records on August 17, 1903. All of the 12 lots composing the block were entered on the county assessment rolls for general taxation for the year 1903, and the ordinary taxing proceedings were had, ignoring the transfer of title to the United States. The tax against the entire block amounted to $798.74. Later the county commissioners ordered a cancellation of the taxes purporting to be assessed against lots 5, 6, 11, and 12, presumably for the reason that those lots appeared to have been conveyed to the government prior to March 1, 1903. The tax purporting to stand against the other 8 lots was $560.90. For this amount, together with accrued interest, the defendants claim that the property is still subject to a valid lien for the taxes of 1903.
The general taxation law of the state of Washington provides in section 63 (Laws 1903, p. 339) that for the purpose of raising a revenue for the state, county indebtedness, county current expense, school, road, and other purposes, the board of county commissioners shall, at the October session of each year, levy a tax on all taxable property in the county, as shown by the assessment roll, sufficient for such purposes. Section 83 of the same law (Laws 1903, p. 74) is as follows:
It is the contention of the county attorney that under these two sections, although the actual levy of the tax takes place in October, such levy is made by operation of law to relate back to March 1st and is to be considered for all purposes as if made at that time. This view finds support in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Washington in Klickitat Warehouse Company v. Klickitat County, 42 Wash. 299, 84 P. 860, and City of Puyallup v. Lakin, 45 Wash. 368, 88 P. 578, though these cases construe only that portion of section 83 relating to taxes on personal property, which fixes the time of 'assessment,' and not any particular date, as the time for the attaching of the lien. The present case, however, presents an element not involved in either of those cases. The Constitution of the United States (art. 1, Sec. 8) confers on the government of the United States the right--
'to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever * * * over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings.'
The consent contemplated by these provisions was given by the state of Washington by the act of January 23, 1890 (Laws 1890, p. 459), in the first section of which is enacted:
'That the consent of the Legislature of the state of Washington be and the same is hereby given to the purchase, by the government of the United States or under the authority of the same, of any tract, piece or parcel of land from any individual or individuals, bodies politic or corporate, within the boundaries of this state, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining thereon armories, arsenals, fortifications, magazines, navy yards, dockyards, custom-houses, lighthouses and other needful public buildings or establishments whatsoever; the consent herein and hereby given being in accordance with the provisions of the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and with the acts of Congress in such cases made and provided.'
By article 26 of its Constitution the state of Washington entered into an irrevocable compact with the United States, in accordance with the provisions of the law for the admission of the state into the Union, in which it is agreed:
'That no tax shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein, belonging to or which may be hereafter purchased by the United States or reserved for use.'
Aside from such compact, the instrumentalities of the government of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peninsula Drainage Dist. No. 2 v. City of Portland
...v. City of Milwaukee, 7 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 286; United States v. City of Buffalo, 2 Cir., 1931, 54 F.2d 471; United States v. Pierce County, D.C.W.D.Wash.1912, 193 F. 529. The rule is recognized in Creason v. Douglas County, 86 Or. 159, 163, 167 P. We consider it unnecessary further to di......
-
United States v. Certain Land in City of St. Louis, Mo.
...rule heretofore followed by the Federal Court in this State and elsewhere. Bannon v. Burnes, 1899, C.C., 39 F. 892; United States v. Pierce County, 1912, D.C., 193 F. 529; United States v. City of Buffalo, 1931, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 471. See, also, Gillmor v. Dale, 27 Utah 372, 75 P. 932; Jacobs......
-
United States v. Board of Com'rs
...the tax lien attaching, and wherein it has been held that the government acquired such lands free of such tax lien. See United States v. Pierce County, D.C., 193 F. 529; Bannon v. Burnes, C. C., 39 F. 892, 893; United States v. City of Buffalo, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 471. This is not a case where ......
-
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Cowlitz County
...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 t......