Murphy v. King County
| Decision Date | 08 March 1907 |
| Citation | 45 Wash. 587,88 P. 1115 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. KING COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John B. Yakey, Judge.
Suit by James B. Murphy against King county and others. From a decree in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions.
C. H. Winders, for appellant.
Kenneth Mackintosh and Ernest B. Herald, for respondents.
On the 24th day of September, 1891, Charles Waters, being the owner of a certain tract of land in King county, platted the same into lots and blocks, and filed a plat thereof in the office of the county auditor as prescribed by law. The plaintiff in this action has succeeded by mesne conveyances to all the right, title, and interest of Waters in certain blocks and parts of blocks designated on this plat, and also in certain streets abutting on the property so acquired. At the time of filing the plat, the lands embraced therein were situated within the body of King county and without the limits of any incorporate city or town, and conditions remain the same at the present time. A particular description of the platted lands, or of the lands owned by the plaintiff or of the streets in controversy, is not material to a decision of this case. At the time of the plaintiff's purchase in 1900, the streets were covered with a heavy growth of timber and underbrush, and had never been opened to public travel; but the plaintiff has since cleared and inclosed the blocks and streets and devoted the land to agricultural purposes. On May 6, 1901, the board of county commissioners vacated certain streets and avenues designated on the plat, but refused to vacate the streets or parts of streets now in controversy. At the time of the commencement of this action, the defendants, as officers of King county were threatening to enter upon the plaintiff's inclosure and open certain streets to public travel. This action was thereupon brought to enjoin them from so doing. The defendants had judgment below, and the plaintiff appeals.
We only deem it necessary to consider one of the grounds urged by the appellant in support of his right to an injunction. Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. § 3803 (Pierce's Code, § 7854), provides that: 'Any county road or part thereof which has heretofore been or may hereafter be authorized which remains unopen for public use for the space of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening the same, shall be and the same is hereby vacated and the authority for building the same is barred by lapse of time.' If this statute applies to streets such as are here involved, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, as authority to open the streets was granted nearly 15 years before any attempt was made to exercise it. The appellant contends that this statute is applicable, while the respondents contend that the statute only applies to county roads laid out by the board of county commissioners, and not to streets such as these. The Wisconsin statute construed in Paine Lumber Co. v. Oshkosh, 89 Wis. 449, 61 N.W. 1108, cited by both parties, provides that: 'Every public highway already laid out or which shall be hereafter laid out, shall cease to be a public highway at the expiration of four years from the time it was so laid out, except such parts thereof as shall have been opened and worked within such time.' And the court held, in the case cited, that the act only applied to roads or streets laid out by the public authorities. The New York statute provides that: 'Every public highway and private road already laid out and dedicated to the use of the public, which shall not have been opened and worked within six years from the time of its being so laid out, and every such highway hereafter to be laid out, that shall not be opened and worked within the like period, shall cease to be a road for any purpose whatever.' The courts of that state have repeatedly held that this statute applies to all county roads and city streets in which the public have an easement only. City of Buffalo v. Hoffeld, 6 Misc. Rep. 197, 27 N.Y.S. 869; Mangam v. Village of Sing Sing, 11 A.D. 212, 42 N.Y.S. 950; City of Buffalo v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 68 A.D. 488, Horey v. Village of Haverstraw, 124 N.Y. 273, 26 N.E. 532.
It will be observed that the Wisconsin statute uses the words 'laid out,' the Washington statute the word 'authorized,' and the New York statute the words 'laid out and dedicated to the use of the public,' as to existing highways, and the words 'laid out' as to future highways. Our statute is broader than the Wisconsin statute, and would seem to be fully as comprehensive as the New York statute. The briefs contain some discussion of the meaning of the word, 'county road,' as used in the above statute. An examination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellogg v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...added). The statute applied to streets dedicated in platted tracts of land outside of cities and towns. See, e.g. , Murphy v. King County , 45 Wash. 587, 88 P. 1115 (1907). In 1909, the legislature amended the statute, re-enacting the same language from the 1890 law (automatically vacating ......
-
Williams Place, LLC v. State
...had dedicated as such in plats of property, if the property fell outside the limits of an incorporated city or town. Murphy v. King County, 45 Wash. 587, 88 P. 1115 (1907). The legislature immediately reacted to Murphy, amending the nonuser provision in the next legislative session by addin......
-
Boise City By and Through Amyx v. Fails
...County, 36 Utah 127, 104 P. 111 (1909); Howell v. King County, 16 Wash.2d 557, 134 P.2d 80 (1943), relying in part on Murphy v. King County, 45 Wash. 587, 88 P. 1115 (1970); Myers v. Daubenbiss, 84 Cal. 1, 23 P. 1027 (1890); Ferroggiaro v. Board of Pub. Works, 52 Cal.App. 393, 198 P. 810 (1......
-
Sowadzki v. Salt Lake County
...that were laid out or established by methods other than by dedication. This case is reviewed by the Supreme Court of Washington in Murphy v. King County, supra, and ruling of the Wisconsin court on the second ground or proposition is disapproved. Like the Supreme Court of Washington, we can......