King v. Bassindale

• Decision Date: 16 November 1923
• Docket Number: 18002.
• Citation: 127 Wash. 189,220 P. 777
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: KING v. BASSINDALE et ux.

220 P. 777

127 Wash. 189

KING v. BASSINDALE et ux.

No. 18002.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 16, 1923

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Clifford, Judge.

Ejectment by Anna J. King against W. S. Bassindale and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Blackburn & Gielens, of Tacoma, for appellants.

H. P Burdick and H. G. Vick, both of Tacoma, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On January 30, 1906, one Lydia Stuhr purchased lot 5 in block 621 of the Central addition to the city of Tacoma. The lot was 25 feet in width, and fronted upon a public street to the west. At the time of the purchase there was a fence purporting to mark the dividing line between the lot and lot 4 of the same block, which abutted lot 5 upon the north. This fence, it developed later, was wholly upon lot 4, cutting off from that lot a strip of land 5 feet in width for its entire length. There was at the time of the purchase, also, a dwelling house of the lot as inclosed by the fence and other fences, which fronted towards the west of the lot. The house was something more than 30 feet back from the west end of the lot. It was erected partly on lot 5 and partly on lot 4, the northerly side of the house extending to the fence before mentioned.

Mrs Stuhr entered into possession of the property shortly after her purchase. She assumed that the fence marked the true north boundary of her lot, and that the house was wholly upon the lot purchased. Some few years later, the precise year Mrs. Stuhr was unable to remember, the fence, having become somewhat decayed, was demolished by a windstorm. She called the fact to the attention of a Mr. Spicer, the then owner of the west 20 feet of lot 4, with a view to a reconstruction of the fence. Mr. Spicer told her, to use her own language, to leave it down; he made no claim, however, that the fence did not mark the true dividing line between the lots. Mrs. Stuhr shortly thereafter removed the remains of the fence, and planted rosebushes and other shrubbery to make the line of the fence. Mrs. Stuhr continued to occupy, care for, and improve the property until about November 7, 1919, when she conveyed lot 5 by warranty deed to the respondent in the present action.

Mr Spicer acquired title to the west 30 feet of lot 4 on November 16, 1905. In 1916 he conveyed the property with other lands to the appellants. Two deeds were executed to convey the property; one a warranty deed conveying the other lands mentioned and the north 20 feet of the west 30 feet of lot 4, and the other a quitclaim deed conveying the south 5 feet of the west 30 feet of the same lot. Some time after purchasing the property the appellants entered upon the property and constructed a fence on the true lot line between lots 4 and 5. The fence ran from the street on the west for a distance of 30 feet, thence north crossing the assumed lot line. This fence was directly in front of the house of the respondent, and interfered with ingress thereto and egress therefrom.

After the fence was constructed Mrs. Stuhr conveyed to the respondent the south 5 feet of lot 4, whereupon the respondent began the present action to eject the appellants from this part of the lot, and to quiet her title thereto. The...