Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1881-09-09
An important Decision.

An important DtclSion.
Daring the pre- ont term % Court
at Seattle, Chief Justice Greene
r,nlered IA decision OF ret RAJ i'm
portarce, touching the Iower Of tho
County Commissioners to ral-e as
sessments returned by the County
Assessor.
In 1878, the County Commission
ers Of King County raised tie assess
mcnt of Isaac Parker. Mr.. Parker,
paid his takes on the valuation of
property as fixed and returned by
the Assessor. The County Treasur-
CT, Geo. D. Hill, advertised the pro-
petty for sale, to pay the taxes on
the amount added to the Assessors
valuation by the Commissioners.
Mr.. Parker brought suit 70 restrain
the Treasurer from selling the prop
erty. On the trial OF the cause, two
points were chiefly insisted upon by
MIR. Parker's counsel, viz: LIST, That
under the law governing taxation,
the County Commissioners could not
raise an assessment returned by the
Assessor, except upon complaint
made by some person, and I'd, That
when the complaint was so made,
the person complained of was en-
titled to notice, so he could defend
his interests.
The case was first tried by ref
cree who foundin favor of the Treas
u1er. In reviewing his decision,
Judge Greene rendered the following
opinion:
"Our statute fixes definite term to be
holden for equalization of axes. TnIs
term has fixed commencement and
variable period. / think that for purposes
of equalization the Commissioners could
lawfully meet at any time during ana
within the period. But the Board had no
power to equalize save on compliant.
ANY taxpayer could complain of any
other taxpayers assessment being too
low, or of his being too high. No taxpay.,
er's assessment, however, could be raised
on complaint of another without falr ana
reasonable notice to himself. Here there
was no complaint and no notice. The
Commissioners raised, arbitrarily, with
out law The increasement was, there
fore, void. -
81 cannot inquire as to the equity OF the
increase. The simple question is, was
there enhancement in legal way! lis
evident not.
LET referees report he set aside and
new finding be made, anC Judgment en-
tered for plaintiffs, according to these
views"
The statute here mentioned by the
Court is Sec. 25 of the revenue law
of 1877, which reads as follows:
** 1.-THE board shall at said term,
hear and determine all matters wherein
complaint is made concerning assessments
and shall raise or reduce, as the case NAV
require, all appraisements Of property
found to I've below or above the average
valuation of property, of the same or SIM
liar kind as made by the ASSESSORS SO as
to make taxation equal and uniform.
The present law, Section IS OF the
act of 1879, reads as follows:
sion, hear and determine all matters
wherein complaint is made concerning as
sessments and may subpoena such VII
ness, hear and take such evidence In re-
lation TO the subject matter pending as
in its discretion it may deem proper, ana
shall raise or reduce, as the case may re.
quire all appraisements OF property ionno
to be below or above the average vs.lua-
ton of property Of the same or similar
kind as made by the Assessor, SO as to
nd IffNrr
The words here in these two Sec
tons are nearly identical except
that, in the present law. witnesses
may be subp@ned and evidence
taken, which clearly indicates, that
the lawmakers had in view some
kind of trial for the determination
of the complaint. Neither of these
sections provide for any notice OF
these proceedings to the tax payer,
Int the general constitutional pro-
vision that emo person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process of law" applies
here. By due process of law is
meant, notice and an opportunity OIL
being heard.
So far as we have observed, it has
been the general practice in the diff
ferent counties, to ignore this gener
al constitutional provision. This
has been done, not because the
County Commissioners would exer
else an arbitrary and unjust power
but because the local law did not in
SO many words direct them to give
this notice. As the Legislature
meets soon, and as the revenue Law
will undoubtedly receive some at
tention we would suggest that the
duties OF the county officers in re-
lation to taxation, be defined in such
plain language, that errors can only
arise where there is willful purpose
to be negligent.