Angell v. Hadley, 30983.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | 30983. |
| Citation | 207 P.2d 191,33 Wn.2d 837 |
| Parties | ANGELL v. HADLEY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2
Action by Edwin George Angell against Dana W. Hadley and others and A. F. Ruiz and Jessie W. Ruiz, his wife, to rescind a contract of sale on ground of alleged misrepresentations. From the judgment, A. F. Ruiz and Jessie W. Ruiz, his wife appeal, and the plaintiff cross-appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from Superiod Court, Kitsap, County; H. G. Sutton, judge.
Merrill Wallace, Bremerton, for appellants.
Marion Garland, Sr., Marion Garland, Jr., W. R. Garland, Frank Hunter, Bremerton, for respondents.
This action, though brought for the stated purpose of rescinding a contract of sale, and based upon alleged misrepresentations as to the extent of the property purchased on a partial payment plan, really involved a dispute as to the dividing line between certain properties.
The property in question lies on the east side of Hool Canal. Appellants and respondents are adjoining property owners. A deep ravine, with a creek at the bottom thereof, exists between their properties.
Respondents purchased their property in 1930. At that time, one Lillico owned the property on both sides of the presently disputed boundary line. A man named Prindle lived to the north. Mr Hadley insisted that the boundary lines should be established Before he purchased the property. When a surevey was made and the north line established, it was so far north that Prindle thought it came too close to the south end of his house. Because of this fact, Lillico sold to Prindle the north sixty-five feet of his tract. The remainder was sold to respondents. Appellants Ruiz bought the original Prindle tract including the sixty-five feet purchased from Lillico.
Respondents' evidence shows that when the arrangement was made between Lillico and Prindle, the surveyor indicated a dividing line between the properties, the line being established by placing an iron stake near an old cedar stump and another at the mouth of the creek. The line defined the northern boundary of the Hadley property--the one approved by the trial court. During the years preceding the bringing of this action, the line established by Hadley and Prindle remained as the accepted boundary line of the property. Other witnesses testified to the fact that the parties, Hadley and Prindle in using their properties observed the property line as surveyed in 1930.
The evidence given in opposition to that just detailed, consisted for the most part of statements as to the results of a survey made by a civil engineer. The survey in no way disputed the direct evidence given by the respondents' witnesses, but purported to show that the survey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paurley v. Harris
...written in the contract. Atwell v. Olson, 30 Wash.2d 179, 190 P.2d 783; Arnold v. Hanson, 91 Cal.App.2d 15, 204 P.2d 97; Angell v. Hadley, 33 Wash.2d 837, 207 P.2d 191; Lake, for Use and Benefit of Benton v. Crosser, 202 Okl. 582, 216 P.2d 583; Nebel v. Guyer, 99 Cal.App.2d 30, 221 P.2d 337......
-
Pendergrast v. Matichuk
...; Atwell v. Olson, 30 Wash.2d 179, 190 P.2d 783 (1948) ; Windsor v. Bourcier, 21 Wash.2d 313, 150 P.2d 717 (1944) ; Angell v. Hadley , 33 Wash.2d 837, 207 P.2d 191 (1949) ; Martin v. Hobbs, 44 Wash.2d 787, 270 P.2d 1067 (1954). But we find nothing in our case law that holds such evidence is......
-
McDonald v. Stern
... ... established by a common grantor preceding Barsher and Hobbs ... Further, Angell v. Hadley , 33 Wn.2d 837, 838, 207 ... P.2d 191 (1949), Atwell v. Olson , 30 Wn.2d 179, 181, ... ...
-
Rinehold v. Renne
...v. Kassner, 60 Wn.2d 12, 15, 371 P.2d 633 (1962) (citing Martin v. Hobbs, 44 Wn.2d 787, 790, 270 P.2d 1067 (1954); Angell v. Hadley, 33 Wn.2d 837, 207 P.2d 191 (1949); Atwell v. Olson, 30 Wn.2d 179, 190 P.2d 783 (1948); Strom v. Arcorace, 27 Wn.2d 478, 178 P.2d 959 (1947); Windsor v. Bourci......