Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. Chase

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [157 Wash. 391] PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. Chase, 290 P. 697, 157 Wash. 351 (Wash. 1930)
• Decision Date: 07 August 1930
• Docket Number: 22259.,22266,22228,22229
• Parties: WASHINGTON MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK, a Corportion, Appellant, v. Samuel H. CHASE, Donald C. McInnis, and Fred K. McBroom, Comprising Tax Commission of State of Washington; and three other cases.

290 P. 697

157 Wash. 351

WASHINGTON MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK, a Corportion, Appellant, v. Samuel H. CHASE, Donald C. McInnis, and Fred K. McBroom, Comprising Tax Commission of State of Washington; and three other cases.

Nos. 22266, 22228, 22229, 22259.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 7, 1930

On petitions for rehearing.

Denied.

For former opinions, see 289 P. 536, 551, 554, 555.

PER CURIAM.

Respondents having filed in these cases a petition for a rehearing, and Messrs. Arthur G. Cohen and Lester M. Livengood, as amici curiae, having also filed a petition for a rehearing, the two petitions have been considered together.

Amici curiae argue that certain language used by this court in the opinions filed in Aberdeen Savings & Loan Association v Chase, 289 P. 536, and Burr, Conrad & Broom, Inc. v Chase, 289 P. 551, indicates that the court intended to lay down certain principles of constitutional law which affect other existing laws providing for the raising of revenue, and which may be construed as limiting the power of the state Legislature in enacting future legislation providing for the levying of other and different species of taxes. In order to clarify the situation, the court now states that the opinions above cited were rendered with a view to determining the questions presented by the cases at bar, and those questions only; that the majority of the court was of the opinion that the legislation therein attacked must be held, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to attempt to establish a...