Kateiva v. Snyder, 20322.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20322. |
| Citation | 143 Wash. 172,254 P. 857 |
| Parties | KATEIVA v. SNYDER et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Card, Judge.
Suit by Kasimer Kateiva against James Arnold Snyder and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
H. W Lueders, of Tacoma, for appellants.
Louis J. Muscek, of Tacoma, for respondent.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of certain described real estate located in Pierce county, and that the defendants occupy the adjoining land; that one day the plaintiff commenced to build a fence on the west line of his property; that the defendants, by means of threats and force compelled him to desist; and that they tore up and destroyed such portions as the plaintiff had already built. His prayer was that the defendants be enjoined from interfering with the construction of the fence. The defendants generally denied the allegations of the complaint and alleged that the plaintiff was a married man, and that his wife was a necessary party to the action; that the plaintiff was undertaking to build a fence on land the possession of which they were entitled to; and that they prohibited him from so doing or from coming upon their land for that purpose. They further plead that some years before when other parties were the owners of the two tracts of land they, to wit, the former owners, had agreed upon a division line fence and had in accordance with such agreement constructed such fence and agreed that it was and should be the dividing line between the properties; that one Collins was the owner of the land upon which the plaintiff was trespassing; and that the defendants had a written contract from him for the purchase of it, and that they were in possession by virtue of such contract. The answer also alleged that if the title to the land was to be tried and if the suit was for the purpose of determining the dividing line, Collins, the owner, was a necessary party.
The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that he had hired a civil engineer to establish the dividing line between his land and that occupied by the defendants, that such engineer had staked out the line, and that the plaintiff was undertaking to build a fence on that line. He also offered testimony showing the acts of the defendants in interfering with him, in that they tore up the portion of the fence he had built, scattered the materials, threatened plaintiff with bodily harm, etc. The defendants by their testimony admitted that they had told the plaintiff that he was on their land and asked him to go off and stay off, and told him not to build a fence at the place he was building it, for the reason that he was trespassing upon their lands and interfering with their right of possession. They also offered much testimony of an old line fence, which it was claimed had existed for a number of years, and that it was on the true dividing line. They offered to show that the previous owners of the two tracts had agreed upon the building of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cascade Sec. Bank v. Butler
...v. Helmich, 20 Wash.2d 167, 146 P.2d 537 (1944); a vendee has the right to sue to enjoin construction of a fence, Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 (1927); a vendee's interest constitutes a mortgagable interest, Kendrick v. Davis, 75 Wash.2d 456, 452 P.2d 222 (1969); a vendee is ......
-
In re McDaniel
...20 Wn.2d 167, 146 P.2d 537, 151 A.L.R. 930 (1944); a vendee has the right to sue to enjoin construction of a fence, Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 (1927); a vendee\'s interest constitutes a mortgageable interest, Kendrick v. Davis, 75 Wn. 2d 456, 452 P.2d 222 (1969); a vendee ......
-
Tomlinson v. Clarke
...20 Wn.2d 167, 146 P.2d 537, 151 A.L.R. 930 (1944); a vendee has the right to sue to enjoin construction of a fence, Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 (1927); a vendee's interest constitutes a mortgageable interest, Kendrick v. Davis, 75 Wn.2d 456, 452 P.2d 222 (1969); a vendee is......
-
Bellingham First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Garrison
...146 P.2d 537 (1944); State ex rel. Oatey Orchard Co. v. Superior Court, 154 Wash. 10, 12--13, 280 P. 350 (1929); Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 175, 254 P. 857 (1927); Desmond v. Shotwell, 142 Wash. 187, 188--89, 252 P. 692 (1927). The California Supreme Court decision in Tucker v. Lasse......
-
Equitable Conversion in Washington: the Doctrine That Dares Not Speak Its Name
...10. Desmond v. Shotwell, 142 Wash. 187, 252 P. 692 (1927). 11. Pratt v. Rhodes, 142 Wash. 411, 253 P. 640 (1927). 12. Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 (1927). 13. Lawson v. Helmich, 20 Wash. 2d 167, 146 P.2d 537 (1944). But see Peters v. Bellingham Coal Mines, 173 Wash. 123, 21 ......
-
Table of Cases
...100 P. 852 (1909): 7.3(2) Kalmas v. Wagner, 82 Wn.App. 105, 915 P.2d 546 (1996), rev'd, 133 Wn.2d 210 (1997): 19.2(14) Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 (1927): 20.4(1)(a) Keene v. Bd. of Accountancy, 77 Wn.App. 849, 894 P.2d 582, review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1020 (1995): 4.2(2) Kell......
-
Real Estate Contracts and the Doctrine of Equitable Conversion in Washington: Dispelling the Ashford Cloud
..."equity regards that as done which ought to be done." 2 J. Pombroy, supra note 13, § 376. 70. See supra note 29. 71. Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 867 72. See supra note 29. See generally Hume, Incidents of the Vendor-Purchaser Relationship (Equitable Conversion), 2 Washington Re......
-
§20.4 - Requisites of a Mortgage
...Lawson v. Helmich, 20 Wn.2d 167, 146 P.2d 537 (1944); and the right to sue to enjoin construction of a fence, Kateiva v. Snyder, 143 Wash. 172, 254 P. 857 Because the court characterizes the vendee's interest in the real estate contract as "substantial rights" and a "valid and subsisting in......