Netherlands American Mortg. Bank v. City of Centralia

• Decision Date: 13 July 1927
• Docket Number: 20520.
• Citation: 144 Wash. 315,257 P. 842
• Parties: NETHERLANDS AMERICAN MORTGAGE BANK v. CITY OF CENTRALIA.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

257 P. 842

144 Wash. 315

NETHERLANDS AMERICAN MORTGAGE BANK v. CITY OF CENTRALIA.

No. 20520.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 13, 1927

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; Reynolds, Judge.

Action by the Netherlands American Mortgage Bank against the City of Centralia. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Delos Spaulding, of Centralia, for appellant.

Wright, Froude, Allen & Hilen, of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN, J.

This action was brought to recover damages to real estate. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining a recovery in the sum of $200. From the judgment entered for this sum the defendant appeals.

The respondent owns a farm in Lewis county. The appellant city acquired a right of way across this farm upon which to construct a pipe line, which is a part of its gravity water system. In making a fill of a depression or gully on the right of way the appellant, as found by the trial court, caused 'great quantities of clay and soft soil deposit to run off from their fill onto the lands of the plaintiff and into its drainage system.' After the damage had occurred, and respondent presented a claim to the appellant, which was rejected, and the present action was thereafter brought.

Upon the trial the appellant objected to the claim on the ground that it did not describe the location of the fill and the damage resulting therefrom with sufficient definiteness, and this presents the principal point urged upon the appeal. A discussion of the question is unnecessary, because under the recent cases of Wong Kee Jun v. City of Seattle (Wash.) 255 P. 645, and Marshall v. Whatcom County (Wash.) 255 P. 654, the respondent was not required to file a claim as a condition precedent to its right to maintain the action.

There are other assignments of error, but these present principally questions of fact.

The findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence, and support the judgment, which will be affirmed.

MACKINTOSH, C.J., and MITCHELL, FULLERTON, and FRENCH, JJ., concur.