, 1892-03-02
COUNTY TAXES.
A SUIT FROM PIERCE COUNTY ON
DELINQUENCIES.

Judgment Affirmed i'm the Case of
Mary Fowler vs.. James @. Fair
child, Treasurer So The Law as
Changed by the Last Legislature.
Mary Fowler, respondent, VS.. James G.
Fairchild, treasurer, etc., appellant.
The respondent was the owner Of certain
real estate in Pierce county subject to tax
alton in the year 1859. Taxes for that year
became delinquent March 1, 1891, by the
act of Jan. 20 of that year, Acts d. IL and
in the month Of June following she ten
dered to appellant, who was treasurer of
the county, the exact sum for which her
property was taxed including penalties
and interest. But the appellant, assuming
to exercise authority under Sec. "a of the
act of 1891 Up. 316) demanded the sum Of
twenty-five cents additional for each sepa-
rate parcel of respondents land amount
ing to over four hundred dollars in all, and
refused to receive the sum offered, or to
issue receipt until the registration fees
should be paid.
At the suit of the respondent, the supe-
rior court, by a peremptory mandamus, re-
qulred the appellant to receive the amount
rendered to him, holding that in respect TO
this matter of the registration fee the act
of 1891 was not applicable to the assess
ments levied for the year 1889. The court
also ordered the cause to be certified to this
court for review, upon this question and
some others.
We have examined the act of 1891 care
fully from its title to its close, and find no
evidence of intention on the part of the leg
lslature to make any of the provisions
therein which add to the burdens of the
taxpayers of the state, of which there are
several, apply otherwise than prospectiyely,
1t is the general rule that such provisions
in a new revenue act do not operate retro
speetiVely unless there is very clear Ian
guage in them to such an effect.
$685.
We might argue the point by lengthy
reference to particular items of internal ey-
idenee in the act which could be used to
sustain the view that this was not intend
ed to be anything more than an ordinary
newly enacted revenue law; but the real in
tentlon of the legislature is so clearly
shown by its act called IAN act to cure de-
fectiYe titles to real estate, passed only
three days before the general act (page 1869
that there is no room for doubt.
An examination of the old law and the
new one shows this difference in the matter
OF the collection of delinquent taxes. I'm
der the act of 1890, on the first day of April
the treasurer was required to return his tax
list OF the year previous to the auditor
(Sec. 99), and the first mention Of subse-
quent authority in him to collect the delin-
quent taxes is found in Sec. Ill, after
Judgment IA ana upon the cert1hcate OF the
sllts auuItor' ollaet Inc coae alld me amend
lees' Gne sgstenl VIZ supstantfally 3 Bne
Ms Clle neu u y. but
Gei Gde aoG ol fqg Ct treasurer mas Pc
Honti Ioltig Glte neq Qi Cle eIlre system oI COL
reGor Ua4gs GoCn peloIe any 4iGer ae1ln
auditor, but makes his settlements for col
ieetAons H. ahu oeflYs[s a copy OF aupncate 9I
ills L9gtsGer 7Es ol aetIIlluen9 properly II
~ tlao el,Is iappGId TiaG ugI Ie olu avs
VI gledsul9i Moulo Haye no pooks OF daGa
iii ci ay hIa Ia 4ls olce POSSESSION I7 OF o
Glrai ~ mleusg lto.A wic " colIu a5ake