King County v. High

Decision Date15 June 1950
Docket Number31299.
Citation219 P.2d 118,36 Wn.2d 580
PartiesKING COUNTY, v. HIGH et ux.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Charles O. Carroll, Stuart G. Oles, Seattle, for appellant.

George Olson, George F. Ward, Seattle, for respondents.

GRADY, Justice

King County instituted this action against respondents to enjoin them from conducting a commercial business upon property owned by them within the limits of an area established by its board of county commissioners as a first residence district. The answer to the complaint set forth an affirmative defense to the effect that the property in question was being used for business purposes at the time of the adoption of the zoning resolution, and by reason of an exception contained in the zoning code its inhibitions did not apply to the property. The court sustained the defense and dismissed the action. King County has appealed.

The factual situation which we find sustained by a very clear preponderance of the evidence is as follows: The tract of land referred to is located on the west side of Bothell Way north of Lake City. In about the year 1923 the owner of the property cleared it and erected one or more buildings thereon, which he used in connection with his business as a building contractor. Later the property was used to carry on a fuel business. In 1935 respondents commenced to make and sell cedar shakes, which activity finally superseded the fuel business. At the outbreak of the war there was a substantial stock of finished merchandise on hand. Respondent Jessie High became the sole owner of the property and business. The respondent entered the military service and was absent eighteen months. After the commencement of the war respondent was unable to use her trucks in carrying on the business. The trucks and other equipment were stored on the property. During her absence some of the shakes were sold. When respondent was discharged from military service she resumed the shake business.

The zoning code contains the following rovision: 'The lawful use of land existing June 2, 1937, although such use does not conform to the provisions hereof, may be continued, but if such nonconforming use is discontinued any future use of said land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this resolution.'

The resolution zoning the area in which this property is located was adopted March 27, 1939. Another provision of the zoning code reads as follows: 'The nonconforming use of a fractional part of a building or lot shall not be extended to occupy a greater part of the building or lot than that occupied on June 2 1937 except that a nonconforming use may be extended to that portion of a building which was arranged or designed for such nonconforming use as of June 2, 1937.'

The appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Skamania County v. Woodall
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 2001
    ...at 648, 849 P.2d 1276 (quoting 8A E. MCQUILLIN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 25.192 (3d Ed.1986)); see also King County v. High, 36 Wash.2d 580, 582-83, 219 P.2d 118 (1950). If the ordinance references a time frame—such as discontinued for one year—then once the person seeking to prove disconti......
  • State v. Accera
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 29, 1955
    ...A. 293, 114 A.L.R. 984 (1938); Paul v. Selectmen of Scituate, 301 Mass. 365, 17 N.E.2d 193, 196 (1938); King County v. High, 36 Wash.2d 580, 219 P.2d 118, 119, 18 A.L.R.2d 722 (1950); State ex rel. Schaetz v. Manders, 206 Wis. 121, 238 N.W. 835 In the only cases we have found, dealing with ......
  • City of University Place v. McGuire
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2000
    ...for a specified period of time." Andrew v. King County, 21 Wash.App. 566, 572, 586 P.2d 509 (1978); see, e.g., King County v. High, 36 Wash.2d 580, 582-83, 219 P.2d 118 (1950). See also 83 AM.JUR.2d Zoning and Planning § 687, at 591 (1992); 1 ANDERSON, supra, § 6.68, at "The primary objecti......
  • High v. High
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1953
    ...the business, and spent fourteen hundred dollars in attorney's fees successfully defending the zoning suit. See King County v. High, 36 Wash.2d 580, 219 P.2d 118, 18 A.L.R.2d 722. Jessie claims that, during this period, the parties entered into an oral modification of their prior property s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 5: Land Use Planning (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Fields), 142 Wn.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133 (2000): 1.14(2)(a), 1.14(4), 4.2(1)(c), 4.3, 4.4(3), 13.6(2), 13.6(2), 13.7(4) King Cnty. v. High, 36 Wn.2d 580, 219 P.2d 118 (1950): 8.12(2)(d) King Cnty. v. State Boundary Review Bd., 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993):7.6 ,7.7(1), 7.8(5), 7.8(6), 7.8(......
  • § 8.11 - Protections Against Changes in Zoning
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 5: Land Use Planning (WSBA) Chapter 8 Zoning
    • Invalid date
    ...use or a use that has been discontinued for a specified period of time. Andrew, 21 Wn.App. at 572; see, e.g., King Cnty. v. High, 36 Wn.2d 580, 582-83, 219 P.2d 118 (1950); Skamania Cnty. v. Woodall, 104 Wn.App. 525, 540, 16 P.3d 701 (2001), review denied, 144 Wn.2d 1021 (2001). When a zoni......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT