Bonne v. Security Sav. Soc.

• Decision Date: 21 September 1904
• Citation: 78 P. 38,35 Wash. 696
• Parties: BONNE et ux. v. SECURITY SAV. SOC. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

78 P. 38

35 Wash. 696

BONNE et ux. v. SECURITY SAV. SOC. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 21, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L. Kennan, Judge.

Action by H. W. Bonne and wife against the Security Savings Society and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendants appeal. Affirmed.

P. C Shine and W. L. Husbands, for appellants.

Merritt & Merritt, for respondents.

The following is a plat showing the property in controversy:

(Image Omitted)

PER CURIAM.

In October, 1879, Samuel G. Havermale and wife platted the S.E 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 18, in township 25 north, of range 43 east of the Willamette Meridian, into lots and blocks, calling the same 'Havermale's Addition to Spokane Falls.' In December, 1881, J. N. Glover and others platted the S.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of the section mentioned into like lots and blocks, calling the same the 'Resurvey and Addition to Spokane Falls.' The plats, as recorded and as marked upon the ground, showed an alleyway some 14 feet 6 inches in width between the most westerly tier of lots in the Havermale Addition and the most easterly tier in the Resurvey and Addition. The streets of the two additions, while they conformed one to the other and paralleled each other in their north and south courses, making the alleyway of uniform width throughout, did not run parallel with the dividing line between the tracts so platted. The variation was such that the dividing line, when compared with the course of the alley, ran diagonally across it; that is, on the south end of the tracts it was at the southeast corner of the most easterly tier of blocks in the Resurvey and Addition, while at the north end it was at the northwest corner of the most westerly tier of blocks in the Havermale Addition. This left a strip lying between lot 1 in block 17 of the Resurvey and Addition and the dividing line between the two additions of some 5.40 feet in width at its north end and about 5 feet at its south end. It is this tract that is in dispute in this action. The respondent is the owner of lot 1 in block 17, and claims the strip to be a part of the alleyway, and for the use of the public, while the appellant contends that it was never dedicated as an alleyway, and that it is the owner of it by virtue of a tax title and a quitclaim deed from the dedicators of the Resurvey and Addition. The appellant sought to inclose the tract, and...