Burr v. Dyer

Decision Date26 November 1910
Citation60 Wash. 603,111 P. 866
PartiesBURR v. DYER et al.
CourtWashington 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 &amp Guie, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

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:

'O. E. Kenyon to H. H. McCord. Release. Whereas, the undersigned, O. E. Kenyon, of Seattle, Washington, and H. H. McCord, now of Los Angeles, California, were formerly copartners, engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate for profit, under the firm name and style of McCord & Kenyon, and the sale of real property by said McCord & Kenyon having been made largely on the deferred payment plan, and many of the transactions at this date now having been completed. And whereas, by certain quitclaim deeds, dated September 11, A. D. 1906, the said H. H. McCord released and quitclaimed unto the said O. E. Kenyon any and all interest or estate in and to sundry descriptions of land in the following additons, situated in King county, Washington, to wit: Wasson's addition to Ravenna Park; Cumberland addition to Seattle; State Park addition to Seattle; Pontiac addition to Seattle; Ravenna Springs Park addition to Seattle; Riverside addition to Seattle; and the Kelsey-Craig five-acre tracts. To all of said deeds of conveyance reference is hereby made for a more complete and full description of the land therein remised and quitclaimed in the county of King and state of Washington, and also the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 and the N. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 10, township 23 north, of range 2 east W. M., situated in Kitsap county, Washington. And whereas, the lands herein referred to and more particularly described in the said quitclaim deeds of September 11, 1906, comprise and include all lands known to be
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Diimmel v. Morse
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1950
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1919
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1923
    ... ... 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 ... ...
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Partnership and Limited Liability Company Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Partnership and Limited Liability Company Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 27
    • Invalid date
    ...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......

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