Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1903-08-03
SAYS THE STATE SUPREME
COURT UNANIMOUSLY.
In Deciding 4 Tax Title Case From Thurston
County. the Supreme Court Takes the
Broad Ground That the Right to Levy
and Collect Taxes Must Be Upheld.

Ill all OPIIIlOtI LdIuCu uOWu ldSt WcVh
and written by Chief Justice Mark A.
Fullerton, the supreme court has estab-
lished broad principle relative to the
foreclosure Of tax liens, thereby remov.
ing the cloud which seems to have en-
veloped the validity of a tax title in this
state. son the plainest principle OF
equality and justice, the courts ought to
insist that a showing Of injury incapable
OF being corrected be made before tax
is declared void," is the principle enun-
ciated in summing up the decision.
The opinion is given in the Illusion
county case OF Stella f. Smith, respond
ent, VS.. w. F. Newell ct. al, defendants
and David Mitchell and wife, appellants.
In the years 1898 and 1894, block 80, OF
Sylvester's plat of Olympia, was owned
by one person and was assessed for each
!. of those years at valuation exceeding
$1,000. On November 10, 1900. the taxes
on the block remained unpaid, and the
respondent applied to the county treas
urer for certificate of delinquency for
taxes due on the east half OF the block.
That part had at that time become the
property of DR.. David Mitchell. The
county treasured, on respondents appli
cation, equally divided the tax levied
against the entire block, and issued the
certificate for the east half, but failed to
notify by registered mail the several
owners interested. Later Mrs. Smith,
the respondent, COLI menced this action to
foreclose on the certificate of delinquency.
The appellants contested, questioning
the sufficiency of the procedure, as well
as the right, but the respondent secured
a judgment. In the appeal OF the SUI
preme court the sufficiency OF the sum.
mons and also OF the verificaton of the
complaint were attacked. The supreme
court holds that even if the objections
were we'll taken, it is not available in
such case as the merits OF the contro-
versy are not affected.
The principal contention was that the
certificate of delinquency sought to be
foreclosed was void through failure OF the
county treasurer to notify the parties in
terested by registered letter. But the
court points out that the same law that
makes such notice necessary gives the
courts power to correct just such omis-
sions. No injury was done the appellant
by any OF the Irregularities, and the court
refused to act on any of the technicai-
ties. In summing up the case, the opin-
ion announces the following doctrine,
which is bound to not ouly add to the
force OF tax titles, but to lessen as well
the disposition to wait for some other
person to pay the taxes and then come
in and claim that they have been paid:
"But why may not the proceedings be
sustained on broader grounds? The state
has power to levy the tax originally, and
power to more specifically apportion 1t
after it was levied. By its final action it
has charged the land with no more than
its just share OF public tax. 1t has vio-
lated no constitutional right of appel
lants. Before declaring the lien of the
tax irrevocable, it has given them their
day in court, where they had the oppor-
tunity to dispute every question going to
the right and power of the state to
charge the property with the tax. De-
spite this opportunity, it has not been
shown that the property has been charg-
ed with single dollar that it ought not
in justice and right to be charged with
Surely where these conditions appear, the
courts ought not to declare the tax void
because of the mere omission OF minis
terial officer to perform statutory duty.
When tax is declared void, the effect is
always to release certain property OF its
just proportion Of the public taxes and
uniustly increase that OF other property
On the plainest principles Of equality and
justice, therefore, the courts ought to in
sist that showing that injury incapable
OF being corrected has been done before
such declaration be made. We think
the judgment should be affirmed, and it
is so ordered"
The entire court concurs in the opinion.