Clarkston Community Corp. v. Asotin County Port Dist., 103--41106--III
| Decision Date | 09 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 103--41106--III,103--41106--III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CLARKSTON COMMUNITY CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant, v. ASOTIN COUNTY PORT DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, Jay Roy Jones, individually and as a member of the partnership of Little and Jones, and W. C. Behrens, Respondents. |
Charles T. Sharp, Clarkston, and Leslie T. McCarthy, Lewiston, Idaho, for appellant.
Jay Roy Jones, of Little & Jones, Clarkston, for respondents.
Plaintiff, Clarkston Community Corporation, appeals from a summary judgment of dismissal in its action against Asotin County Port District, its attorney and manager, for willfully and maliciously slandering its title to four parcels of land along the Snake River in Asotin County. The four parcels of land in question lie within the taking line of an army corps of engineers' project.
The facts pertinent to this case are as follows:
September 10, 1968, Jay R. Jones, defendant's counsel, in a letter to the District Engineer, Walla Walla District Corps of Engineers, made the following statement:
(I)t now appears that all land along the Snake River in Asotin County, claimed by the Clarkston Community Corporation, * * * may well be subject to dispute * * *
September 16, 1968, plaintiff demanded a retraction.
September 19, 1968, W. C. Behrens, defendant's manager, reterated Jones' allegations concerning plaintiff's title.
September 20, 1968, Max Tysor, Chief of the Real Estate Division of the Department of Army, Walla Walla District Corps of Engineers, in reply to the Jones letter of September 10, 1968, stated the proposed acquisition of plaintiff's land--four parcels in question--had not been approved and consequently there were no purchases by the army corps of engineers then pending for any of the land in dispute.
September 24, 1968, in a letter from Tysor to plaintiff, the following appeared:
(T)he Port has informed us by letter dated 19 September 1968 that all lands claimed by the Corporation and fronting on the Snake River in Asotin County may be subject to suit by the Port, and it appears to the Port to be in the public interest to finally determine ownership of these lands before the Corps appraises and offers to purchase land parcels within the referenced area. * * *
* * * In view of these circumstances, we do not propose to initiate appraisals of Corporation tracts On a priority basis. However, these will be acquired in due course and as necessary regardless of the status of the local litigation.
(Italics ours.)
September 24, 1968, plaintiff filed its complaint.
September 30, 1968, Tysor informed plaintiff that the acquisition of its land was not yet approved and he could not proceed any further.
October 3, 1968, Tysor wrote defendant the following:
Neither the pending litigation nor the Port's statement of interest or claim in specific tracts (containing those of the instant case) Has caused us any delay in land acquisition progress.
(Italics ours.)
October, 8, 1968, the parties, by stipulation, agreed to join in a request to the army corps of engineers for the initiation of appraisal on a priority basis of the parcels in dispute.
December 3, 1968, Tysor again wrote defendant:
We informed you by letter dated 3 October 1968 that acquisition of Port property would proceed in due course. However, since then Congress has placed rigid controls on Government expenditures for Fiscal Year 1969. As a result, higher authority imposed restrictions on total expenditures on this project. Accordingly, we do not anticipate beginning purchase negotiations with the Port until at least April or May 1969 with payment sometime after 1 July 1969.
The necessary elements of the instant cause of action are set forth in Lee v. Maggard, 197 Wash. 380, 382, 85 P.2d 654, 87 P.2d 106 (1938):
In Newell, Slander and Libel, § 162, it is said:
'Three things are necessary to maintain an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dalton M, LLC v. N. Cascade Tr. Servs., Inc.
...to a slander of title claim. Rorvig v. Douglas , 123 Wash.2d 854, 861, 873 P.2d 492 (1994) ; Clarkston Community Corporation v. Asotin County Port District , 3 Wash. App. 1, 4, 472 P.2d 558 (1970).¶67 As to this third element, the trial court deemed U.S. Bank's purchase at the trustee's sal......
-
Dalton M, LLC v. N. Cascade Tr. Servs.
...to a slander of title claim. Rorvig v. Douglas, 123 Wn.2d 854, 861 (1994); Clarkston Community Corporation v. Asotin County Port District, 3 Wn.App. 1, 4, 472 P.2d 558 (1970). As to this third element, the trial court deemed U.S. Bank's purchase at the trustee's sale as the qualifying pendi......
-
Chase v. Daily Record, Inc.
...no genuine issue of fact as to any material element necessary to support a claimed cause of action. Clarkston Community Corp. v. Asotin County Port Dist., 3 Wash.App. 1, 472 P.2d 558 (1970) and Felsman v. Kessler, 2 Wash.App. 493, 468 P.2d 691 (1970). See also Trautman, Motions for Summary ......
-
Ezell v. Graves
...v. Coykendall, 57 N.D. 785, 224 N.W. 202 (1919); Hubbard v. Scott, 85 Or. 1, 166 P. 33 (1917); Clarkston Community Corp. v. Asotin County Port Dist., 3 Wash.App. 1, 472 P.2d 558 (1970); Barquin v. Hall Oil Co., 28 Wyo. 164, 201 P. 352 (1921). See generally, Annotation, Special Damages in Sl......