The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-05-06
Board Of Equalization Exceeded
Its Jurisdiction.
so SAYS SUPERIOR COURT.
Personal Property Assessments
Were Raised without Authority
Of LAw-CoaRt Gives Juagnent
for Attorney -. d. sachs In .
Test Suit-Coanty VIII He Called
Ipon - Refund Taxes Paid.

The superior court of King county yes
terday held In test case that most OF the
work done b. the county board OF tax
equalization In the way Of raising personal
property tax assessments last August was
Illegal
The board summoned hundreds Of tax
| payers TO appear and show cause why
their personal assessments should not be
raised. by ending CIT written notices.
| The court finds that these notices did no,
conform 10 the law. and therefore did not
aushoIaze the board 10 raise any assess
mens N default of the taxpayer 10 appear
and Object. As a result the county will
be called upon. should the decision be at
armed by the superior court. 10 refund
several thousand dollars of taxes levied
under assessments so raised.
The matter came before Judge Jacobs
yesterday In the case Of Morris b. Sachs
VS.. kiEg county and County Treasurer
Whittlesey. brought for the sole purpose
OF testing the legality OF the equalization
boards action. In his complaint Sachs.
who is a well known attorney, alleged that
he had been compelled to pay and had
paid under protest A.s9 in excess OF the
amount legally due from him to the coun-
~ as taxes upon his law library. He adj
mitted an Indebtedness OF $is.42. but OBJ
jected 10 an alleged arbitrary increase Of
the amount To $2p.a2. and set out in his
complaint in detail the proceedings of the
board OF equalization whereby his assess
ment was increased. as be alleged. with
out due legal notice.
The answer of the defendants. the coun-
~ and tie county treasurer. was filed yes
ts6day. admitting the increase of the as
sessment on the PLAINTIFFS law library
from $3.50 TO $780, and the refusal Of the
treasurer 10 accept SIG ~ In fun payment
of the plaintiffs taxes. but denying the
iliegality OF the equalization boards ac-
ton and the want OF due notice u the
proposed increased assessment. This an
her n rrds ne "a Ina ~
the plaintiffs personal property as fixe:l
by the board Of equalization was the true
taxable valuation.
Sachs fled a motion fer Judgment on the
pisadsngs on the ground that the answer
confessed the PRAYER OF his complaint.
and Judge Jacobs. after hearing argument,
granted the motion, basfng his decision
upon a recent decision Of the supreme
court to the effec; that the statutory no.
tice required In civil actions in the SUI
perior court was required 20 be given by
the board of equalization, ard that the
FIVE days time allowed by the board in
its written notice for appearance by the
taxpayer was insufficient
Prosecuting Attorney McEiroy. who
represented the county. argued that the
supreme court case was a mere 'dictum.
or casual reference to the question, and
not a decision. ard that inasmuch as tie
plaintiff was resident of the city. IL
would be presumed that he received the
boards notice in due course of mail.
The statutory rule is that where notice
Is served by matt doubfs the usual time
OF i've DAYS must be allowed To the per-
son served for answering. Mr.. McE.lray
ccntenSed that this provision applied only
when the notice was served outside OF the
county. The court held. however. that the
plaintiffs contention. was sustained and
ruled against Mr.. McEiroy and In favor
Of Attorney Sachs.
The case Will probably be appealed. II
the superior courts decision is upheld,
the county will be compelled to refund the
excess over the original assessment on all
personal property taxes increased by the
board Of equalization and paid under pro-
test. as I'm Attorney Sachs case. IL Ia
estimated that between $2aW and aoa
of such taxes have been paid N.