Hawk v. Walthew
| Decision Date | 16 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25850. |
| Citation | 52 P.2d 1258,184 Wash. 673 |
| Parties | HAWK v. WALTHEW. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.
Action by James P. Hawk against John R. Walthew. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
R. F Dotsch, of Olympia, for appellant.
Burgunder & Walthew, of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought to quiet title to certain real estate. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and sought to have the title to the disputed real estate quieted in himself. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that the plaintiff should take nothing and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment quieting the title to the property. Judgment was entered in accordance with the findings and conclusions, from which the plaintiff appealed.
The appellant, in the year 1897, acquired title to lot 3 in section 26, in a certain township in Thurston county. Lewis S. Barnard, in 1900, acquired title to the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and lot 4, all in the same section. The respondent acquired title from Barnard in 1917. The northeast quarter to the southeast quarter is to the east of lot 3. Lot 4 is to the south of the other two tracts. On the west, lot 3 and lot 4 border on Long Lake.
In 1902, a wire fence was erected, starting near the northeast corner of lot 3 and extending south. When those building the fence reached the southeast corner of lot 3, the question of whether they would turn and go west to the lake along the south line of lot 3 or go straight on through lot 4 to the lake arose, and it was finally concluded that, inasmuch as there was no pasture land in the portion of lot 4 which would be to the left of the fence extended straight down to the lake, and the further fact that the fence could be built straight ahead with less work and less expense, it was thus built. The wire fence between lot 3 and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter varied from 7 feet to 20 feet to the north of the true line.
The appellant claims to have acquired title to the strip and also the tract on the west end of lot 4 by adverse possession. He says that, when the fence was built, it was intended to be the true dividing line between the properties. The respondent says that the purpose of the erection of the fence was to regulate pasturage. This property, or a part of it, at the time was timber land which, in 1905, was logged off. One witness referred to it as wild land. The only use to which it was put was that of pasturage; there being no cultivated tracts. The trial court found: 'That said fence was not erected nor intended by the parties thereto to be a line fence nor as determining the boundary between said contiguous tracts, but was erected as a matter of convenience for the purpose of regulating the pasturage of livestock.'
After considering all the evidence, as it appears in the record, we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy v. Goerz
...and not as a boundary does not establish adverse possession. Taylor v. Talmadge, 45 Wash.2d 144, 273 P.2d 506 (1954); Hawk v. Walthew, 184 Wash. 673, 52 P.2d 1258 (1935); Lappenbusch v. Florkow, 175 Wash. 23, 26 P.2d 388 (1933). See also Young v. Newbro, 32 Wash.2d 141, 200 P.2d 975 (1948);......
-
Roy v. Cunningham
...in an adverse possession claim. Chaplin v. Sanders, 100 Wash.2d 853, 861-62, 676 P.2d 431 (1984). The Cunninghams cite Hawk v. Walthew, 184 Wash. 673, 52 P.2d 1258 (1935) for the proposition that where testimony establishes the original purpose of a fence was pasturage, the use will be deem......
-
Muench v. Oxley
...purported adverse holder. Rather, possession will be presumed to be in subordination to the title of the true owner. Hawk v. Walthew, 184 Wash. 673, 52 P.2d 1258 (1935). From the facts here, it is clear that if title to the contested property was obtained by adverse possession, that title m......
-
Bowden-Gazzam Co. v. Kent, 29345.
... ... The burden of proof is on ... respondents. People's Savings Bank v. Bufford, ... 90 Wash. 204, 155 P. 1068; Hawk v. Walthew, 184 ... Wash. 673, 52 P.2d 1258 ... John ... McReavy, father of respondent Helen McReavy Andersen, in 1904 ... ...