The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-20
CAN BE NO APPEAL.
FnoM THE ACTION OF THE BOARD
OF EQUALIZATION.
In the Case OF George f. Knapp. Re-
Appellant. the supreme Court
Decides In Favor of the Latter
\ Question as 20 Excessive vaiu-
alton of Property.

Prosecuting Attorney HASTE received a
brief notice last evening that the
state supreme court mad handed
down decision in the case of
George z. Knapp. respondent, VS.
King county, appellant. in which the app
peal of the county was sustained This
case arose over difference OF opinion
between Mr. Knapp and the board of
equalization. Mr.. Knapp took the case
into the superior court and won. The
state supreme court now decides in favor
of the county. and thereby says in sub
stance that there Is no appeal from the
action of the board of equalization.
August 90 1885, George Il. Knapp flied
with the board of equalization OF King
county petition. alleging that the lands
described as lots in the town OF Huron
were excessively assessed for the year
1895. He claimed they had no value other
than as acreage. and that they should be
valued regardless of their subdivision into
lots and blocks under the designation of
the town of Huron. He asked that the
lands be assessed on the basis Of acre
age. at the rate OF about SIG per acre. in
stead OF from s. to so per lot
This petition was duly considered by the
board of equalization and petitioners
prayer for reduction OF said assessment
was. on August "a, 1895. denied.
On August q. 1895. Knapp filed with
the board notice OF his appeal from the
action OF the board denying his petition 10
the superior court. On August 80 he filed
his bond for the costs on appeal
On January IA. 1895, the day set for the
hearing. King county appeared specially
and objected TO the jurisdiction of the sn-
perior court 10 entertain the appeal or
10 review the action of the board of equal
ization on appeal. which objection the
sd 10, n p lfr1c
sci duly excepted, and its exception was
allowed.
Thereupon. but without waving its OBJ
lection. King county appeared generally.
and. after considering the evidence and
argument of counsel on the merits OF the
matters set forth in the petition.
the court made and filed findings of fact
and conclusions OF law, TO which the
counsel excepted, and the court thereupon
rendered judgment in favor of George +.
Knapp. reducing the assessment to
valuation upon the basis of acreage at
about SIS per acre.
Prosecuting Attorney HASTE. represent
ing the county. appealed the case to the
state supreme court. claiming that the si-
perior court had no jurisdiction. In argu-
ing the case he said that although the
board Of equalization was composed OF the
persons who made up the board of county
distinct in It's functions and invested by
law with special jurisdiction, which the
board OF county commissioners did not
possess. He also claimed that the statu-
tory provision giving the right OF appeal
from the county commissioners did not ap-
ply TO the board of equalization.
He pointed out that there was no statute
giving the right OF appeal from the action
OF the board OF equalization. and claimed
that without such statute the right OF ar
peal was withheld. He took the position
that the legislature withheld the right OF
appeal as inconsistent with tending to
Illustrate the objects for which the board
of equalization was created.
The case was argued few days ago and
the court did not lose any time In sustain
Ing the appeal, which reverses the superior
court, and thereby declares that there Is
no appeal from the action OF the board OF
equalization.