Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy
| Decision Date | 27 October 1906 |
| Citation | 87 P. 257,44 Wash. 239 |
| Parties | ONTARIO LAND CO. v. YORDY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; H. B. Rigg, Judge.
Action by the Ontario Land Company against Jay Yordy and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter a decree for defendants.
Ira P Englehart, for appellants.
E. B. Preble, for respondent.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff, the Ontario Land Company, against the defendants Jay Yordy and Minnie E Yordy, his wife, to recover possession of certain city lots in North Yakima. It appears that the plaintiff's grantors, Chester A. Congdon and Clara B. Congdon, being owners of the E. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 and the W. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 24, in township 13 N., of range 18 E. W M., except 10 acres belonging to one Charles M. Holton platted the same on May 16, 1889, as Capital addition to North Yakima; that the entire tract above described was apparently platted, with the exception of the Holton 10 acres; that through the central portion of the plat, which included a certain body of land marked 'Reserved,' and hereinafter mentioned, the blocks were consecutively numbered; that, where blocks numbered 352, 353, 372, and 373 would have ordinarily appeared, a rectangular tract was shown, marked 'Reserved,' the same being of sufficient size to include four ordinary blocks; that no explanation was afforded, either by the dedication or upon the plat, as to what was meant by the term 'Reserved,' nor was the use to which said tract was to be applied declared; that the assessor of Yakima county listed and appraised for taxation what he described as blocks 352 and 372 in Capital addition to North Yakima, Wash., and the same were taxed for the years 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895 that all taxes for these years became delinquent; that the county foreclosed the same on blocks 352 and 372 of Capital addition to North Yakima; that under the foreclosure decree a tax deed was afterwards issued to the defendant Jay Yordy; that he afterwards paid all subsequent taxes levied thereon; that on May 24, 1890, after the said Congdon and wife had platted Capital addition, they deeded all of the land therein included to the plaintiff, the Ontario Land Company, but that, instead of describing the same by lots and blocks, they conveyed it as the W. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 and the E. 1/2 of the S.W. 1/4 of section 24, township 13 N., of range 18 E. W. M., excepting therefrom the Holton tract; that in the deed from Congdon and wife to the plaintiff no allusion whatever was made to Capital addition to North Yakima; that on September 22, 1904, after the tax deed above mentioned had been executed and delivered to the defendant Yordy, and had been recorded, the plaintiff, the Ontario Land Company, platted that portion of Capital addition marked 'Reserved' as 'Heerman's Addition to North Yakima,' subdividing said reserved tract into 4 blocks, numbered from 1 to 4, inclusive, and each block being subdivided into 16 lots; that Yordy had then taken possession of a portion of the tract marked 'Reserved,' claiming the same under his tax deed; and that afterwards the plaintiff, the Ontario Land Company, instituted this action to eject him from certain lots, which it described in its complaint as being in blocks 1 and 2 of Heerman's addition, making no reference whatever to Capital addition, or any part thereof. The trial court, after making its findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered a decree in favor of plaintiff, awarding it possession, and the defendants have appealed.
The appellants contend that they are entitled under the tax deed to that portion of the land marked 'Reserved,' which would, by the consecutive system of numbering used in said original Capital addition plat, have constituted blocks 352 and 372; while the respondent insists that it has instituted this action to recover the possession of certain lots in Heerman's addition to North Yakima, not included in the appellants' tax deed, and that the tax deed in no way describes, nor does it identify, any land included either in Capital addition or Heerman's addition. The main issue in this case, therefore, is whether the description of the land as blocks 352 and 372 of Capital addition to North Yakima is sufficient in law to give validity to the deed. The evidence shows that the respondent had actual notice and knowledge of the fact that an attempt had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Northern Railway Company, a Corp. v. The County of Grand Forks
... ... range 11, 80 acres" was held sufficient. Ontario ... Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239, 87 P. 257; Webb v ... Mobile & O. R. Co., 105 Miss. 175, 62 ... ...
-
WC & AN Miller Development Co. v. EMIG PROPERTIES
...168 U.S. 674, 18 S. Ct. 229, 42 L.Ed. 622; Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 1909, 212 U.S. 152, 29 S.Ct. 278, 53 L.Ed. 449, affirming, 1906, 44 Wash. 239, 87 P. 257; Saranac Land & Timber Co. v. Roberts, 1900, 177 U. S. 318, 20 S.Ct. 642, 44 L.Ed. 786; Keely v. Sanders, 1879, 99 U.S. 441, 443, 25......
-
Nielson v. Robbins, No. 63479-8-I (Wash. App. 6/1/2010)
...City of Bremerton, 25 Wn.2d 508, 171 P.2d 243 (1946); Wingard v. Pierce County, 23 Wn.2d 296, 160 P.2d 1009 (1945); Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239, 87 P. 257 (1906). 57. 38 Wn.2d 886, 234 P.2d 489 58. Bingham, 38 Wn.2d at 889. 59. The deed in Bingham contained the following descrip......
-
Nielson v. Robbins
...of Bremerton, 25 Wn.2d 508, 171 P.2d 243 (1946); Wingard v. Pierce County, 23 Wn.2d 296, 160 P.2d 1009 (1945); Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 44 Wash. 239, 87 P. 257 (1906). [57] 38 Wn.2d 886, 234 P.2d 489 (1951). [58] Bingham, 38 Wn.2d at 889. [59] The deed in Bingham contained the following d......