Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. Pierce County

• Decision Date: 12 March 1925
• Docket Number: 18647.
• Citation: 233 P. 922,133 Wash. 355
• Parties: WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO. v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

233 P. 922

133 Wash. 355

WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO. v. PIERCE COUNTY et al.

No. 18647.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 12, 1925

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Chapman, Judge.

Suit by the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, against Pierce County and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

J. W Selden, Frank D. Nash, and D. D. Schneider, all of Tacoma for appellants.

Lyle Henderson & Carnahan and Hayden, Langhorne & Metzger, all of Tacoma, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

Pursuant to the provision of the statute (Rem. Comp. Stat. § 11109), requiring real property to be listed and assessed biennially for the purposes of taxation, the county assessor of Pierce county in the year 1922 listed and assessed the real property of respondent, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, for the ensuing biennium. In due course of procedure the listing and valuations made by the assessor were carried into the assessment roll of the county, and the valuations duly equalized by the county board of equalization at its August session of the year 1922.

The respondent's lands have value chiefly because of the timber upon them. In March, 1923, the board of county commissioners of Pierce county, feeling that the timber lands generally of the county were valued too low for assessment purposes, called the assessor in conference when the matter was gone over between them. The result of the conference was that the assessor agreed to examine into such valuations and report his conclusions to the board in time to take action, if action was found advisable, at the coming August session of the board of equalization. The assessor subsequently revalued the properties, filing with the county commissioners what he termed a rate sheet, in which he recommended an increase in the valuation of a large part of the respondent's properties. The increase recommended was substantial. While the total of the increase is not tabulated in the record, an examination of the rate sheet shows that on each of the tracts listed there was a marked increase over the valuations of 1922, and that on a considerable part of them the valuations were more than doubled.

The board of equalization, at its August meeting in 1923, took cognizance of the recommendations of the assessor, and resolved to increase the valuations of the respondent's property to the amount recommended by the assessor, unless reasons to the contrary were shown. To that end they caused written notices to be mailed to the respondent of that purport. A separate notice was mailed for each separate tract on which an increase in value was recommended--some 344 in number. They were mailed on August 6, 1923, and required the respondent to appear before the board on the 13th of the same month. The respondent did not appear in response to the notice, and the board, later on in its session, raised the value of its property for assessment purposes for the ensuing year to the sums recommended by the assessor. The county officers proceeded to spread the new valuations on the assessment rolls of the county, whereupon the respondent brought the present suit to have the action of the board of equalization declared null and void, and to require the county assessor to accept taxes on its property based on the valuations made by the assessor in the year 1922. Issue was taken on the complaint and a trial was had, resulting in a decree in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. The county and its codefendants appeal.

The appellants question the right of the respondent to maintain its suits; the contention being that no ground for equitable relief was shown and that the respondent had a complete remedy by a writ of review. But we cannot think the contention requires extended discussion. The relief sought was based in part upon facts which did not appear on the face of the record made by the board of equalization, and in such cases it is our rule that relief may be sought by an original suit brought on the equity side of the court. State ex rel. S. & I. E. R. Co. v. State Board, etc., 75 Wash 90, 134 P. 695; State ex rel. Oregon-W. R. & N. Co. v. Clausen, 82 Wash. 1, 143 P. 312. In the first of these cases the remedy was sought by a writ of review, but we held the proceeding inadequate, pointing out that 'our statutory certiorari and review proceeding contemplates a review in the courts of the proceeding had in an inferior tribunal only upon the record of such proceeding made therein,' and holding that 'an original action on the equity side of the court * * * was the only practical remedy available' where the facts did not so appear. The second case is to the same effect. There the remedy was sought by a writ of review, and...