Flint v. Long

• Decision Date: 17 July 1895
• Citation: 12 Wash. 342,41 P. 49
• Parties: FLINT ET AL. v. LONG ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

41 P. 49

12 Wash. 342

FLINT ET AL. v. LONG ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 17, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Thomas Flint and another against Franklin P. Long and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Preston & Albertson, for appellants.

Greene & Turner, for respondents.

DUNBAR, J.

The plaintiffs and defendants in this case derive their respective claims of title from a common source, namely, one D. T. Wheeler and his wife. The land in controversy is a part of the tract of "thirty acres off from the south side of the east 120 acres of what is known as the 'C. D. Boren Donation Claim"' in the city of Seattle, of which D. T. Wheeler and wife were on the 7th day of December, 1870, seised and possessed in fee simple. Wheeler and wife, on the 10th day of December, 1870, being still the owners of a certain 5 acres of said 30 acres, in which tract of 5 acres is included the parcel now in dispute conveyed said 5 acres to one Benjamin Flint, which Flint afterwards duly conveyed to appellants. The record shows that said Wheeler and wife, on December 7, 1870, conveyed 10 acres out of the 30 acres above mentioned to one John Lawler and Margaret Kollock in undivided interests, and that this 10 acres was, on April 10, 1882, partitioned in severalty between these grantees. This 10 acres abuts on the west boundary of the 5 acres deeded to appellants, and does not overlap any part of the latter according to the description in the respective deeds. Lawler, however, in platting his part of the said 10 acres, staked it out on the ground, not according to the description of his deeds, but so as to include the west 102 feet of the 5 acres owned by appellants. The land in controversy is a part of this strip of 102 feet and corresponds with lots 5 and 6 of block 4 of Lawler's addition, as the same were actually staked out on the ground. The description in the paper plat, however, follows the description of the Lawler deeds, and does not purport to cover any part of said strip of 102 feet. The respondent Long became the purchaser of lots 5 and 6 of block 4 of Lawler's addition, so that the question is, who is entitled to the parcel in dispute by reason of these conveyances? At least that would be the question if there was not any question of the statute of limitations in the case. Mary Monasmith is the tenant of respondent Franklin P. Long herein, and was made a party to this action which is an action in ejectment. The defense of adverse possession for 10 years prior to the commencement of the suit under said alleged color of title was set up by the respondents, and the view we take of this issue renders unnecessary the discussion of any other propositions. Conceding the necessity, under the provisions of our statute to show color of title on the part of the respondent in this case,-a question upon which we do not now pass,-it seems to us that such color of title was fairly shown. All that is necessary to be shown is that there was a proof or colorable title under which the entry or claim has been made in good faith. The land in question was purchased by the respondents and the platting on file merely represented the lots as staked out upon the ground; and a deed to certain lots purporting to convey land actually staked out upon the face of the earth to correspond with the deed would certainly be a purchase, and an entry thereunder, if such entry was made in good faith. It is...