Denee v. Ankeny Gunning v. Morrison
Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
Docket Number | 440,Nos. 147,s. 147 |
Parties | DENEE v. ANKENY. GUNNING et ux. v. MORRISON et ux |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from 208-209 intentionally omitted] Mr. Fred B. Morrill, of Spokane, Wash., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Council pn pages 209-210 imtentionally omitted.]
Mr. Reese H. Voorhees, of Spokane, Wash., for defendants in error.
These cases involve the same opints; the second was decided below upon authority of the first. Ridpath v. Denee, 85 Wash 322, 148 Pac. 15; Morrison v. Gunning, 91 Wash. 693, 157 Pac. 1199. It will suffice briefly to state and indicate our opinion in respect of the federal questions as raised in No. 147.
The following portions of Remington & Ballinger's Ann. Codes & Stats. of Washington are in force as law in that state:
'Sec. 811. Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer who either,——
'1. By force, or menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise; or
Relying upon these sections, defendant in error instituted an action of forcible detainer in the superior court for Spokane county, alleging that while he was (and for more than five days had been) in peaceful and undisturbed possession of certain lands inclosed by a good and substantial fence plaintiff in error in the nighttime 'broke the inclosure above mentioned around said above-described premises and entered thereon, and has since said entry continuously occupied and remained upon said premises,' and has refused to surrender them. He asked restitution and damages.
By answer and also by tender of proof plaintiff in error unsuccessfully sought to set up and show that the lands belonged to the United States (having never been granted) were unlawfully inclosed and that he entered in order to initiate a homestead claim. The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment granting relief asked by defendant in error. 85 Wash. 322, 325, 326, 327, 328, 148 Pac. 15, 16. It found that for more than 20 years he had been in peaceful possession of the lands which were fenced and under cultivation, and that at night plaintiff in error broke the inclosure, entered, and refused to remove.
After quoting the two sections set out above, the court said:
Replying to insistence that the premises were unappropriated public lands which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. Hacking
... ... Hambleton v. Duhain, 71 Cal. 136, 11 P ... 865; and Denee v. Ankeny, 246 U.S. 208, 38 ... S.Ct. 226, 62 L.Ed. 669. But the ... ...
-
Woodbury v. Bunker
... ... Altice, 33 Wash. 335, 74 P. 556, in ... dicta in Ridpath v. Denee, 85 Wash. 322, ... 148 P. 15, affirmed Denee v. Ankeny, 246 ... U.S ... ...
-
Snitman v. Goodman
...is quite different from some state statutes. For example, see the statute of the State of Washington considered in Denee v. Ankeny, 246 U.S. 208, 38 S.Ct. 226, 62 L.Ed. 669. On the whole case our conclusion is that the tenancy was effectively terminated by notice, that the entry of the land......
-
United States v. Thompson
...clashes between persons privileged to go upon or use such areas. McKelvey v. United States, supra. In the case of Denee v. Ankeny, 246 U.S. 208, 38 S.Ct. 226, 62 L.Ed. 669, the applicability of the Washington State Statute governing forcible entry and detainer as to premises on unappropriat......