Whitfield v. Davies

• Decision Date: 20 February 1914
• Citation: 78 Wash. 256,138 P. 883
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WHITFIELD v. DAVIES, Assessor.

138 P. 883

78 Wash. 256

WHITFIELD v. DAVIES, Assessor.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 20, 1914

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C Bell, Judge.

Action by William Whitfield to restrain T. D. Davies, as Assessor of Snohomish County, from extending certain taxes on the rolls of the county. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. W Klein, of Snohomish, and Robert McMurchie, of Everett, for appellant.

J. A Coleman and James M. Hogan, both of Everett, for respondent.

GOSE J.

This is an action by a taxpayer to restrain the officials of the county of Snohomish from extending upon the assessment rolls of the county any taxes in excess of ten mills on the dollar. The city of Snohomish assumed the defense and interposed a general demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and a decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed.

The city of Snohomish is a city of the third class. In October 1913, an ordinance was passed and approved levying a tax of 15 mills on the dollar on all property, real and personal, within the city subject to taxation for the year 1913, for the payment of current expenses of the city. The point to be determined is what statute controls. A correct understanding of this question necessitates a consideration of certain conflicting statutes.

In 1890 the Legislature passed an act entitled 'An act providing for the organization, classification, incorporation and government of municipal corporations, and declaring an emergency.' In respect to municipal corporations of the third class, it was enacted (section 117, subd. 9, p. 184) that the city council of such city shall have the power to levy and collect annually a property tax, classified as a general fund, a street fund, and a sewer fund: 'The levy for all purposes for any one year shall not exceed one dollar on each one hundred dollars of the assessed value of all real and personal property within such city.' In 1897 an act was passed (Laws 1897, p. 222) entitled, 'An act relating to the taxes and funds of municipal corporations having less than twenty thousand inhabitants.' Section 3 of this act provided that such municipal corporations shall levy and collect annually a property tax for the payment of current expenses, not exceeding ten mills on the dollar, a tax for the payment of indebtedness, if any exists, not exceeding six mills on the dollar, etc. It will be observed that this section is in direct conflict with subdivision 9 of section 117 of the act of 1890. Otherwise there is no conflict between the two acts. Section 9 of the act of 1890 is carried into Rem. & Bal. Code as section 7685. Section 3 of the act of 1897 is carried into the same code as section 5131. In 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 274) an act was passed entitled 'An act relating to taxes in cities and towns and amending section 5131 of Remington & Ballinger's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington.' This statute re-enacted section 3 of the Laws of 1897, section 5131 of Rem. & Bal. Code, and added: 'Provided, that any such municipal corporation having at present an existing indebtedness it may levy and collect annually a property tax for the payment of current expenses, not exceeding fifteen mills on the dollar.' It was under this statute that the city sought to make the levy. This act was approved by the Governor on March 17, 1913. At the same session of the Legislature (Laws 1913, p. 313) an act was passed entitled 'An act amending section 7685 of Remington & Ballinger's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington relating to the powers of the city council of third-class cities and declaring the act necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and providing that it shall take effect immediately.' This act was approved March 18, 1913. It re-enacted section 117 of Laws of 1890, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7685. It expressly provides that 'the levy for all purposes for any one year shall not exceed one dollar on each one hundred dollars of the assessed value of all real and personal property within such city.' The trial court held that the levy should have been made under this act.

The appellant argues, in effect, that the act of March 17th is a special act and that the act of March 18th is a general act, and invokes the rule that general acts do not repeal special acts unless the intent to repeal is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. We cannot agree with counsel that the act of March 17th is a special act. Both acts are general in their nature. The act of March 17th has reference to municipal corporations having less than 20,000 inhabitants. The act of March 18th has reference to cities of the third class. The inconsistency of the acts is so marked that they cannot operate concurrently. One must yield to the other.

We have held that the later of two conflicting statutes...