Atwell v. Olson, 30436.

Decision Date18 March 1948
Docket Number30436.
Citation190 P.2d 783,30 Wn.2d 179
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesATWELL et al. v. OLSON et al.

Department 1

Department 1.

Action by Gertrude Atwell and another against Archie H. Olson and others, to quiet title to land. From an adverse decree defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hon. Howard M. Findley Judge.

Heideman, Johnson, Flanagan & Russell, of Seattle for appellants.

Carroll Hendron and E. P. Whiting, both of Seattle, for respondents.

MILLARD Justice.

Defendants prosecute this appeal from a decree quieting title in plaintiffs to a strip of land in block 1, Haller Lake tracts, in King county, Washington.

Did the common grantor of the predecessors in interest of respondents and of appellants establish a dividing line between the portion of land sold by him to his grantee, and the portion retained by the grantor, which the common grantor and his grantee agreed was the boundary line between the two properties?

If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, is the agreed boundary, so fixed and determined, binding upon the successors in interest of the common grantor?

Those are the only questions presented by this appeal.

The trial court found that Norman E. Crooks and wife, owners of lots 11, 12, and 13, except the west 31 feet of lot 11, in block 1, Haller Lake tracts, in King county, entered into a contract, March 7, 1928, to sell to Sven O. Forsman and wife, the south one-half of this property. On October 17, 1930, Crooks and wife conveyed the property, by warranty deed, to Forsman and wife. By warranty deed, executed August 3, 1940, Forsman and wife conveyed the south one-half of the above-described property to respondent Gertrude Atwell, who, ever since that date, has owned the property as her separate estate. When she purchased the property she was informed by Forsman that the line established and agreed upon by Forsman and Crooks, and as marked by a hedge and the line of the hedge extended, was the northern boundary of the property purchased. Within a period of approximately six months after Crooks entered into the real estate contract with Forsman, the former measured off and established the dividing line between the north one-half and the south one-half of lots 11, 12, and 13 of block 11, Haller Lake tracts in King county, and set stakes at each end of the eastwest line of the property. At the time this line was established, it was agreed by and between Crooks and Forsman that that was the dividing line between the north one-half and the south one-half of the property. Within one year after execution of the real estate contract between Crooks and Forsman, the latter planted a hedge running east and west on the dividing line established by Crooks and Forsman, to a point approximately two-thirds of the distance across the property. Forsman erected a house and garage upon the property in reference to the boundary line thus established. He planted trees and bushes, cultivated and occupied the property up to the line of the hedge. Forsman and his successors in interest, respondent Gertrude Atwell and husband, after purchase of the property from Forsman and wife, at all times since the boundary line was established, claimed and occupied the property, and respondents erected a playhouse and swing, and placed a children's playground south of the line of the property, as established by Crooks and Forsman, marked by the hedge and the line of the hedge extended.

Norman E. Crooks conveyed to his wife, Augusta Crooks, all of his interest in the north one-half of the property described above, and Augusta Crooks conveyed the north one-half of the property, November 23, 1945, to Donald Krusell and wife. Krusell moved onto and occupied the north one-half of the property, and bulldozed the same up to the line of the hedge and the line of the hedge extended. December 12, 1945, Donald Krusell and wife conveyed to Archie H. Olson, Sr., the east 51.665 feet of the north one-half of lot 12, and the west 65.67 feet of the north one-half of lot 13, in block 1 Haller Lake tracts. Archie H. Olson and wife entered into possession of the property purchased by them, erected a house thereon and caused a survey to be made of the property. They claimed the property to a point upon the east line of lot 13, which is 14.7 feet south of the line established and agreed upon by Crooks and Forsman, and extending westerly to the north-south line of the property purchased by them. They erected upon the corner thus established a brick pier and threatened to encroach upon the property of respondents Atwell and to destroy the hedge and the improvements placed upon the property by the respondents. The court further found that appellants at all times had knowledge of the existence of the hedge, the improvements made by responde...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Paurley v. Harris
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 16 March 1954
    ...the seller is bound by the dividing line agreed upon, even though it varies from the description 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......
  • Pendergrast v. Matichuk
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 15 September 2016
    ...sufficient to establish the first Winans element. See Kay Corp. v. Anderson, 72 Wash.2d 879, 436 P.2d 459 (1967) ; 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) ; Marti......
  • McDonald v. Stern
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 24 July 2023
    ...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, 190 P.2d 783 (1948), and Clausing v. Kassner, 60 Wn.2d at 15-16, relied on evidence that the grantees accepted and observed a boundary. And......
  • Saghian v. Shemuelian
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • 19 March 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Boundary Law: the Rule of Monument Control in Washington
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 7-02, December 1983
    • Invalid date
    ...Wash. 2d 800, 415 P.2d 650 (1966). 69. Id. at 802, 415 P.2d at 652. 70. Id. at 803, 415 P.2d at 652. 71. Atwell v. Olson, 30 Wash. 2d 179, 190 P.2d 783 (1948); Thompson v. Bain, 28 Wash. 2d 590, 183 P.2d 785 (1947); Samples v. Kergan, 109 Wash. 503, 187 P. 383 (1920); Rose v. Fletcher, 83 W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT