The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-07
DELINQUENTTAXLAW
Important Decision by Pierce
County Superior Court.
SALE OF PROPERTY ENJO,NED.
The Supreme Court Decides Three I'm
portant Seattle Cases, Including
That OF the Crane Cheek.

cision regarding delinquent taxes which inter
ests directly 1000 tax suit defendants in this
county. and indirectly all delinquent taxpayers
and real estate men and lawyers OF the state.
The 1000 defendants in tax suits here are jubi-
liant over the decision. Before the matter can
be appealed to the supreme court it is believed
the legislature will be ready with relief in the
matter in the shape of a new law. The decision
follows:
This action was brought by plaintiffs to re-
strain defendants from proceeding further in
collecting certain taxes against plaintiffs.
sessed and levied for the year 1898; it being
alleged that defendants have brought suits and
are about to sell plaintiffs property to collect
the same under the act of March 9, 1891, entitled,
IAN act to provide for the assessment and col
Lection OF taxes in the state OF Washington. and
mitted for decision, upon the demurrer of de-
PENDANTS to the plaintiffs petition, oIP the
ground that the petition does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Defendants rely on the opinion of the supreme
court in the case of County of Spokane vs..
Northern Pacific Railroad Company. filed Octo-
Der 10. 1892 The court in that case held that
the demurrer was properly overruled, and the
proceedings under the laws OF 1891 maintain
able; but that court also held that it was not
necessary to decide the question OF the right of
redempton: and 1t seems to me that it IS i'm
perativelynecessary that that question must be
decided in this case In order TO determine the
rights of the parties: for if the laws OF 1891 are
SO indefinite and uncertain as TO redemption
that the officers who are required to act under
them cannot properly advertise and sell prop
erty in pursuance thereof or if the question az
10 whether the plaintiffs can redeem at all is
material TO their rights. then the law cannot be
upheld, for want of certainty, and contro-
vening the substantial rights of plaintiffs; Tor
the ofhcers cannot properly or inteligently sell
or convey the property TO be sold.
Ofhcers charged with the execution of law
Cannot be left to conjecture as to what their
duties are under particular law. The sheriff
l. an executive officer, and his duties in that
respect should ana must be pointed out and
defined by the law he is called upon to execute,
ana II the law OF 1891, relating to the sale of
property for delinquent taxes OF 1890, leaves it
uncertain as 20 what the character of the sale is,
or as to how IL should be made, it cannot be
said that such law provides a proper and
adequate method of procedure for the collection
OF such taxes by suit and sale; and if the plain
tiifs by these proceedings are deprived of any
substantial. rights which the law guarantees
them, the law and proceedings under it cannot
be Upheld, and the plaintiff have the right 10
maintain this action TO prevent the defendants
from depriving them of such rights.
The plaintiffs, under the revenue laws of
1896, had two years within which to redeem
property from tax sales for taxes assessed and
levied under that law; and 1t the laws of 1891
simply sought to change the method of collect
ing the without affecting the right of
redemption, it could not be Objectionable, as the
legislature had the undOubtea right to change
that method: but II seems clear to me that the
legislature sought by the laws of 1891 to go fur
Their than this and deprive the delinquent owner
oil the right OF redemption: or nj least to enact
law so indefinite and uncertain IN that respect
that its provisions relating to sale must be held
to lie void for uncertainty-f ii be held
of ls90-for it can not be said that
by this provision an adequate remedy is
lett or substituted for the law of 1890 relating
to sales Of real estate for delinquent taxes:
neither can it lie said that the provisions relat-
ing 10 sales in the laws of 1891 do not affect the
substantial rights OF the delinquent, owners as
TO redemption OF taxes assessed and levied prior
to 1891; and II the epeaIi3g clause, section ll9
OF the laws OF 1891, Is to be given effect as re-
serving all existing rights, then the legislature
intended that the owner should have reserved
the right TO redeem at any time within two
years But when and where is this to be de-
termined? Does the officer making the sale re-
serve that right to the owner or can he do SO
under the provisions OF the law Of 1891? 1t
seems 10 me that 1t cannot be done and give
effect Ia that law.
1t is further certain that the officer il lett en-
tlrciy to uncertainty as 20 what the character OF
the sale should oe by the language of the act of
1871, ana the owner 5 rights certainly cannot he
LETT 10 such uncertainty. His property can only
be taken and sod IN accordance with some
piaiu and adequate provision OF law, which
leaves nothing TO speculation as to what is or
can be sold and how IL should be sold but il
seems entirely reasonable and consistent that
the re9eaiing clause OF the laws OF 1891 should
particularly save all existing rights under
former isw-. and that in doing so the legislature
had in view the fact that there was or might be
some delinquent taxes for the wear 1890 and
prior years which would necessarily be affected
oy the enactment of the law OF 1891 aud il is
also consistent and reasonable to saw that the
legislature having that possibility and prob
ability IN view was DESTROYS of exempting such
delinquent taxes from the operation of the laws
OF 1891. and leaving the remedy and rights OF the
taxing power anu the owners intact under the
former Jaw.
TO give the &C. OF March 6. 1891, any force at
all IL VIII be necessary To construe section ii2l
OF that act TO mean that uotwithsta ndiug the
TACT that the act OF March Q. 1884, expressly pro
yides that ali existing lights under The laws Of
$50 are expressly saved Hereunder. vet the
property OF the delinquent owners for delju.
qrent taxes oi 1871 anu prior years may and
shall be sold rs provided Ia section l,l2N of the
act OF March ., 1884, which does NOT save to
such owners any existing rights under the laws
OF iS9l as 10 redemption: an il seems To me
that II would re very DlUrioUs To the title To
real estate 70 leave sl.ch uncertainty in alton
thereto; Tor under such procedure neither tna
ofhcers charged with the sale or purchaser
would be able 10 determine the the owner or
character ~ such sale or title Tor land sold for
taxes of such years.
Iftae supreme court will. by decision. suppIv
the Language necessary - save ali existing
rights as 10 redemption upon sales made for the
year l>y0 and PRIOR years oy deciding that rs TO
al such sa.es iAe term for redemption will be
two years from date OF sale, then see no hard
ship or inconsistency in the law: but until that
question - settled by dec, sion OF that court
sales OF rea. estate for the taxes OF those wears
should ~. be permitted.
The demurrer in this case viii therefore be
overiulvd aud an injunction granted.
This year tae delinquent tax roll will reach
about sa0o0a. Last year Il was :ao.eao
meeting Of the lawyers viii be held ,omor-
rows morning 10 draw up resolutions commend
Ing the actions OF Judges Allyn. Beverly and
Campbell Counter opposition reso. utions are
predicted A few Lawyers are against favorable
resolutions