City of Tacoma v. Gillespie
| Decision Date | 11 December 1914 |
| Citation | 82 Wash. 487,144 P. 697 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF TACOMA v. GILLESPIE et al. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.
Condemnation by the City of Tacoma against William Gillespie and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
S. F McAnally, F. H. Atchinson, and L. C. Stevenson, all of Tacoma, for appellants.
T. L Stiles and Frank Carnahan, both of Tacoma, for respondent.
This action was brought by the city of Tacoma under the provisions of section 7771, Rem. & Bal. Code, to condemn for street purposes certain property lying in what is known as Carroll & Hannah's addition to Tacoma, and abutting upon what is commonly known as the flume line right of way, and also to condemn the interest, if any, of all persons claiming any of the land lying within the right of way. The appellants and some 40 other persons were named as defendants. The property sought to be condemned was described in the petition. The parties interested appeared in the action, and the court made an adjudication of public necessity. Thereafter the appellants made a claim of ownership to certain tracts lying within the line of the right of way, claiming that they were the owners thereof by adverse possession. The court proceeded to hear evidence for and against the claim of the appellants, and concluded that they had no title to any portion of said lots lying within the boundaries of the line of said right of way, and afterwards called a jury to assess the damages to property taken without the line of the right of way. Verdicts were returned in favor of several of the defendants in the action, but no damages were returned in favor of the appellants. A judgment was entered accordingly, and the appellants have appealed from that judgment.
The principal assignments of error are to the effect: First, that the court erred in entering a decree quieting title of right of way in the city, and in refusing a motion to dismiss the action as to the appellants; and, second, in finding that the several appellants had not acquired title by adverse possession.
It appears from the record that in the year 1884, Julia A McCarver and others were the owners of a certain tract of land in Pierce county. On September 22, 1884, the owners conveyed by deed to the Tacoma Light & Water Company a strip of land 66 feet in width across that tract of land. Immediately after the execution of this deed, the Tacoma Light & Water Company took possession of this strip of land and constructed a water flume thereon for the purpose of supplying the city of Tacoma with water. This flume was completed in the year 1885, and was thereafter used for carrying water to the inhabitants of the city of Tacoma. The deed of September 22d made by McCarver and others to the Tacoma Light & Water Company was not filed for record until October 30, 1888. In the year 1888, prior to the recording of the deed to the Tacoma Light & Water Company, Thomas Carroll and D. B. Hannah acquired title to the tract of land through which the right of way of the Tacoma Light & Water Company ran. They thereafter proceeded to plat the entire tract into lots and block, including the 66 feet of right of way belonging to the Tacoma Light & Water Company. This tract was designated as Carroll & Hannah's addition. In the dedication, the right of way of the Tacoma Light & Water Company was excepted. This plat was thereupon filed for record in Pierce county. Thereafter lots were sold in this addition to different people. In most of the deeds there was an exception of the right of way of the Tacoma Light & Water Company. In the year 1893, the Tacoma Light & Water Company conveyed its water system to the city of Tacoma, including the right of way above named. At the time of the conveyance the city immediately took possession of the property, and has continuously occupied the same for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the city. Some time after the acquisition by the city it laid a wooden stave pipe underground along its right of way, into which water was turned, and the old flume line was discarded. The purchasers of lots in this addition, some of which were lying within the right of way, fenced and occupied certain portions of the right of way. The appellants, when they appeared in the condemnation action, claimed title to a portion of the right of way by reason of having occupied the same for a period beyond the statute, and when this claim was made ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Port of Grays Harbor v. Bankruptcy Estate of Roderick Timber Co.
...or adjudicate the claim. State v. Evans, 96 Wash.2d 119, 634 P.2d 845 (1981), opinion changed by, 649 P.2d 633 (1982); Tacoma v. Gillespie, 82 Wash. 487, 144 P. 697 (1914). Cf. King Cy. v. Squire Inv. Co., 59 Wash.App. 888, 801 P.2d 1022 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1021, 811 P.2d 219......
-
State v. Evans
...has the right but the obligation to try questions of title before the question of damages is submitted to the jury. Tacoma v. Gillespie, 82 Wash. 487, 144 P. 697 (1914). The preliminary question of whether the condemnee has any legal rights or claims in the property for which he seeks damag......
-
City of Tacoma v. Mason County Power Co.
...to the value of the land taken. If their claim was invalid and they had no interest, they were entitled to nothing.' Tacoma v. Gillespie, 82 Wash. 487, 144 P. 697. as we do, that appellants had no rights or interests to condemn in the respondent's proceeding, it is not necessary to discuss ......
-
State ex rel. Horne v. McDonald
...Walla Walla v. Dement Bros. Co., 67 Wash. 186, 121 P. 63; Chelan Electric Co. v. Perry, 148 Wash. 353, 268 P. 1040. In Tacoma v. Gillespie, 82 Wash. 487, 144 P. 697, 689, which was an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding finding that appellants had no title and refusing to award them any ......