Skip to main content
· 6/10/1911

State ex rel. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Clausen

Citations

  • 63 Wash. 535
  • 116 P. 7
  • 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1241

Syllabus

<p>Taxation — Valuation of Railways — Powers of Commission — Similar Statutes — Repugnant Acts. Where the value of railway property has been fixed by the state railway commission pursuant to the act of 1907 (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 8638) passed March 8th and approved March 16, 1907, which provides for a determination of the actual value of all railroads by reference to the actual cost of reproduction and that the findings of the railway commission shall be conclusive in any proceeding in which the public and the railroad is interested, the state tax commission has no power to fix another valuation for the purposes of taxation, under the act of 1907 (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9141) passed February 20th and approved March 6th, which provides that the state tax commission shall determine the annual assessment of the operating property of all railroads by reference to books, papers, market value of the stock, mileage and gross earnings, and personal view, if necessary; in view of both the object to be accomplished by the railway commission act and the fact that it was passed subsequently to the passage of the other act.</p> <p>Same — Statutes—Construction — Repugnant Acts — Harmonizing Acts Passed at Same Session. The two acts are repugnant, except in so far as the state tax commission may estimate the value until such time as the valuation is fixed by a more certain method by the state railway commission, and this construction should be adopted in order to harmonize two acts passed at the same session; especially in view of the amendatory act of 1911, p. 538, § 117, expressly making the railway commission valuations applicable for the purposes of assessment and taxation.</p> <p>Same — Statutes—Legislative Construction. The courts will not speculate upon legislative intent when that body has subsequently put its own construction on prior enactments.</p> <p>Same — Uniformity — Unequal Taxation. Where railway property is assessed upon a higher standard than other railway property a

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the Court was bound to consider a contract provision that was “plainly relevant to the central issue of contract interpretation raised [on] appeal” despite the parties’ failure to cite or discuss the provision
  • finding clause providing “Nothing . . . in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed to create any rights for or to bestow any benefits upon third parties” demonstrated the “parties’ clear disclaimer of any intent to create third-party rights”
  • finding clause providing “Nothing . . . in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed to create any rights for or to bestow any benefits upon third parties” demonstrated the “parties’ clear disclaimer of any intent to create third-party rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chadwick, Fullerton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.