Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Wash. 527

Trimble v. Kitsap County

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1920

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1920-12-22

, entered January 10, 1920, in favor of the defendants, in an action to reduce the assessed valuation and taxes assessed upon lands belonging to plaintiffs, tried to the court on the merits.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1921

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The only evidence tending to show that the assessed valuation put upon the lands by the taxing officers of the county was fraudulently excessively made, is the testimony of -witnesses tending to show that the lands were assessed in excess of fifty per cent of their actual value, and in excess, proportionately, of the assessment of other. similar lands in the county. A painstaking review of the evidence, practically all of which was opinion evidence, and by no means free from conflict, convinces us that it does not warrant the conclusion that the lands in question were valued by the assessing officers in excess of fifty per cent of their real value, as limited by § 9112, Bern. Code, nor that the lands were assessed at a value materially in excess of that at which other similar lands in the county were assessed ;—that is, that the evidence does not show such excessive valuation with that degree of conclusiveness calling for interference by the court's in such cases. We think it would be unprofitable to review the evidence in detail in this opinion. The judgment is affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kettle River Industrial & Development Co. v. Ferry County

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1920-12-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Parker, J.

¶1The plaintiffs, Trimble and wife, commenced this action in the superior court for Kitsap county, seeking a decree reducing the assessed valuation made by the taxing officers of that county, for purposes of taxation, upon lands belonging to the plaintiffs, situated on Blake Island in that county; and requiring the county and its officers to accept in full payment of taxes upon the lands for the years in question, a less amount than that levied thereon by the taxing officers of that county in accordance with the alleged excessive assessment. Trial upon the merits, in the superior court, resulted in a judgment denying the relief prayed for, from which the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

¶2*528The only evidence tending to show that the assessed valuation put upon the lands by the taxing officers of the county was fraudulently excessively made, is the testimony of witnesses tending to show that the lands were assessed in excess of fifty per cent of their actual value, and in excess, proportionately, of the assessment of other similar lands in the county. A' painstaking review of the evidence, practically all of which was opinion evidence, and by no means free from conflict, convinces us that it does not warrant the conclusion that the lands in question were valued by the assessing officers in excess of fifty per cent of their real value, as limited by § 9112, Bern. Code, nor that the lands were assessed at a value materially in .excess of that at which other similar lands in the county were assessed; — that is, that the evidence does not show such excessive valuation with that degree of conclusiveness calling for interference by the courts in such cases. We think it would be unprofitable to review the evidence in detail in this opinion. The judgment is affirmed.

¶3Fullerton, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., concur.

Holcomb, C. J.

¶4(dissenting) — I dissent. I think the lands were assessed out of all proportion to any lands of anywhere near the same .class, use, surroundings and possibilities, and therefore with very unjust discrimination.

/113/wash/527 · .json · Public domain