Burr v. Dyer
Decision Date | 26 November 1910 |
Citation | 60 Wash. 603,111 P. 866 |
Parties | BURR v. DYER et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John F. Main Judge.
Actions by Arthur S. Burr against George Dyer and wife, William Rees and wife, and Charles Holmes and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
T Howard Shelley and J. W. Russell, for appellant.
Guie & Guie, for respondents.
The appellant brought three actions for a partition of certain real estate, alleging that he was the owner of an undivided one-half interest therein. The respondents denied the ownership in the plaintiff, alleged ownership in themselves and prayed to have their title quieted. While the cases involved different pieces of real estate, the facts in all are substantially the same. The actions were consolidated and tried as one case. The court found in favor of the defendants, and entered a decree quieting their title. The plaintiff has appealed.
It appears that O. E. Kenyon and H. McCord were copartners in the business of buying and selling real estate in Seattle from the years 1903 to 1906, inclusive. About February 11, 1903, the Washington National Bank of Seattle, being the owner, conveyed the property in question to said O. E. Kenyon and H. McCord. This property was located in 'State Park addition to Seattle.' Soon thereafter both Kenyon and McCord went to Roslyn, in Kittitas county, and offered the lots for sale. Some were sold on contract, and others for cash. Respondents purchased certain of the lots thus offered by the two partners, who personally conducted the sale. McCord and wife afterwards executed warranty deeds, purporting to convey the whole interest in the lots to the grantees. Thereafter, in the year 1906, certain quitclaim deeds conveying the real estate involved were made by H. McCord and wife to O. E. Kenyon, and afterwards, on September 18, 1906, Kenyon and McCord entered into a release as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diimmel v. Morse
... ... absence of notice, is not bound to go outside the records to ... inquire about them. Burr v. Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 ... P. 866 ... The trial ... court's judgment that Lenzi's mortgage is valid is ... ...
-
Jones v. Berg
...and ought to have the same effect as a formal assent.' See, also, Worthington v. Staunton, 16 W.Va. 208; 7 R. C. L. 883; Burr v. Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 P. 866. It true that this is not a partition suit, but the principle which would induce a court in a partition suit to award to Peterson's......
-
Weldfelt v. Hart
... ... have asserted a title to the world made by a proper record as ... a good title. Burr v. Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 P ... 866; McIver v. Hilstad, 80 Wash. 206, 141 P. 306; ... Schade v. Western Union, etc., Co. (Wash.) 215 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Wn. App. 251, 86 P.3d 788 (2004): 6.2(1) Brower v. Johnson, 56 Wn.2d 321, 352 P.2d 814 (1960): 9.3(2), 14.3(1)(d), 16.3(2) Burr v. Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 P. 866 (1910): 27.6 C____________________________________________________________________ Carboneau v. Peterson, 1 Wn.2d 347, 95 P.2d 10......
-
Chapter 27.6 The Trustee’s Power to Defeat Unrecorded Partnership Interests
...the trustee would not prevail because constructive notice would defeat his or her claim as a bona fide purchaser. Burr v. Dyer, 60 Wash. 603, 111 P. 866 (1910); cf. In re Probasco, 839 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1988) (constructive notice of prior unrecorded transfer defeats Because a Chapter 11 d......