Cogswell v. Forrest

• Decision Date: 15 February 1896
• Citation: 14 Wash. 1,43 P. 1098
• Parties: COGSWELL v. FORREST, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

43 P. 1098

14 Wash. 1

COGSWELL v. FORREST, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 15, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Emmett N. Parker, Judge.

Action by Myron J. Cogswell against William T. Forrest, commissioner of public lands, etc., and others, members of the board of state land commissioners, to enjoin defendants from selling certain land. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. C Jones and James A. Haight, for appellants.

Parsons Corell & Parsons, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The complaint in this action shows that the plaintiff was the owner, under a patent from the United States, of certain lands, specifically described in the complaint. The land is described in the official plat of the survey returned to the general land office by the surveyor general pursuant to the provisions of an act of congress of the 24th of April 1820. This particular land is described in said plat and survey, and field notes accompanying the same, by courses and distances. The defendants platted and appraised a part of the lands described in said patent, claiming the same as the property of the state of Washington, and threatened to offer the same for sale as such; and the plaintiff seeks to have said commissioners restrained and enjoined from so doing contending that thereby a cloud will be created on his title under said patent. To this complaint the defendants filed a general demurrer. The demurrer was overruled by the trial court, and a judgment entered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.

The complaint shows that the land in controversy was within the calls of the patent, and was situated below the line of ordinary high tide, but within the meander line. It is contended by the appellants that the meander lines run along the shores of bodies of water by the United States surveyors are not lines of boundary, but lines run merely to locate the shore line and determine the area of the upland from which the price is computed, and that the body of water along which the meander lines are run is the true boundary, and that in this state the boundary line of lands adjoining tidal waters is that prevailing at common law, to wit, mean high-water mark. The appellants cite many cases to sustain their contention, but we think there are none of them in point. We do not question the general rule in this respect, but that rule...