Muir v. Johnson

Decision Date26 March 1908
PartiesMUIR v. JOHNSON et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by B. L. Muir against M. J. Johnson and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant M. J. Johnson appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jerold Landon Finch, for appellant.

Vince H. Faben, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent is the owner of lot 1 in block 74 or Burke's second addition to the city of Seattle. This block is bounded on the east side by the waters of Lake Washington, or, to speak more accurately, by the meander line run by the government surveyors to mark the line between the waters of the lake and the upland. The appellant as early as 1889 built a boathouse immediately to the north of lot 1 in block 74, in a street called 'Jackson Street.' As originally constructed the boathouse lay partly on the shore and partly over the water, and was wholly within the street. Later on from time to time, additions were built thereto, extending farther into the lake, and piles were driven still farther out in such a manner as to furnish mooring places for boats. In 1902 the appellant caused some 30 piles to be driven in the bed of the lake to the east and south of his boathouse. These were driven in rows of 5 piles each about 12 feet apart, three rows of which extended across the front of lot 1 in block 74, the inner piling being about 75 feet distant therefrom. These piles he used as a mooring place for scows and launches brought to his shop to be repaired; and some months prior to the commencement of the action he also moored a floating house boat between the piles and the lakeward boundary of lot 1. This boathouse was 30 feet in length, and lay partly in Jackson street and partly in front of lot 1 and within a few feet of the boundary line of the lot. Both the house boat and the piles, however, were wholly within the waters of the lake below the line of low-water mark. In this action the respondent sought a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of the house boat, and so many of the piles driven in the bed of the lake as stood in front of lot 1, and a preventive injunction to restrain the appellant from placing and maintaining house boats, piles and other permanent fixtures in front of the lot. In his complaint the respondent rested his right to injunctive relief on the ground that the acts of the appellant amounted to an unlawful interference with his riparian and littoral rights as owner and possessor of lot 1 in block 74. The trial court, adopting this theory, entered judgment in his favor restraining the appellant from maintaining permanent fixtures of any kind in the waters of the lake in the front of lot 1 and ordering the house boat and piling now in its front to be removed.

In so far as the judgment of the court rests upon the ground that the structures ordered removed violate the respondent's riparian and littoral rights, it is manifest that it cannot be maintained. As early as the case of Eisenbach v Hatfield, 2 Wash. St. 236, 26 P. 539, 12 L. R. A. 632, this court held that the owner of uplands bordering on navigable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Beck v. Tacoma City Light, No. 30329-9-II (WA 4/12/2005)
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 2005
    ...Wn.2d at 16, 20, 22; Hill, 86 Wash. at 229; Sturtevant, 76 Wash. at 165, 167. 61. Sturtevant, 76 Wash. at 164 (quoting Muir v. Johnson, 49 Wash. 66, 94 P. 899 (1908)). 62. State v. Federal Power Commission, 207 F.2d 391, 393 (9th Cir. 1953) cert. denied, 347 U.S. 936 (1954); Robinson v. Sil......
  • Port of Seattle v. Oregon Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 31 Enero 1921
    ...1889-1890, p. 435. The grantee of the upland cannot complain of another who erects a structure below highwater mark, Muir v. Johnson, 49 Wash. 66, 94 Pac. 899. He does not acquire any right of access over the intervening land and water area to the navigable channel, Lowsdale v. Grays Harbor......
  • State v. Sturtevant
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1913
    ...boundary line and water of sufficient depth for ordinary navigation.' Van Siclen v. Muir, 46 Wash. 38-42, 89 P. 188, 189. In Muir v. Johnson, 49 Wash. 69, 94 P. 900, court again quotes the definition of shore lands saying: 'This description, as we said in Van Siclen v. Muir, 46 Wash. 38, 89......
  • Ghione v. State, 29976.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 12 Diciembre 1946
    ...Van Siclen v. Muir, supra, involved the right of the upland owner as against one who moored his houseboat over the shore land. Muir v. Johnson, supra, related to injunctive based upon the upland owner's right to purchase, in the same situation. Lownsdale v. Grays Harbor Boom Co., supra, as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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